Governance Document
The Department of
Educational Studies
I. A Brief History and Introduction
On November 21, 1978, the faculty in the School of Education at Indiana University – Purdue
University at Fort Wayne developed and approved the School of Education Policy Handbook. The
handbook stated official policies and procedures of the School of Education and were subject to
change and revision over the years based upon faculty governance and approval of proposed
changes by the faculty as a whole.
In a School of Education faculty meeting held on September 27, 2000, the faculty unanimously
voted to approve the creation of two departments in the School of Education, the Department of
Educational Studies and the Department of Professional Studies.
Authorization of this departmental document was approved by the faculty of the Department of
Educational Studies on April 9, 2008 and articulates the official policies and procedures of the
department. The following was moved, seconded, and approved:
A governance policy handbook is maintained within the Department of Educational Studies
that reflects appropriate policies and procedures. A copy of the handbook is distributed to
all faculty within the department and is maintained and reviewed annually by the Faculty
Affairs Committee of the department.
This document is not intended to supersede any general policies set forth by the School of
Education, or any Senate documents that may govern faculty at Indiana University – Purdue
University at Fort Wayne. In matters related to certification of school personnel, this department
acts in liaison between Indiana University – Purdue University Fort Wayne and agencies of state
government responsible for teacher certification and appropriate departments of Indiana University
– Bloomington and Purdue University – West Lafayette.
1
II.
LEADERSHIP STRUCTURE
A. Chair: In accordance with relevant policies, the chair makes decisions concerning hiring
and reappointment, staffing and scheduling of courses, faculty and staff workloads and
assignments, student concerns, and departmental budgets and resources. The chair is
(re)appointed by the Dean of the School of Education on the recommendation of the
department's faculty. See VCAA Memorandum 05-3 for a recommended timeframe of the
appointment. The chair will receive anonymous, informative, written feedback from the
faculty annually. This evaluation is conducted by the department Faculty Affairs
Committee.
The department faculty endorse the VCAA Office of Academic Affairs Memorandum 053, dated January 2006, outlining the authority and responsibilities of the department chair.
A copy of this memorandum is located in Appendix A.
In addition, the chair is to serve on the SOE:
1. Dean’s Cabinet.
2. Dean’s Council.
3. Community Advisory Council.
B. Procedures for the Appointment of the Department Chair
The department Faculty Affairs Committee initiates the following procedures in the first
week of February of the fiscal year of which the department chair's term expires (based on
the contract issued by the VCAA), or at the resignation of the chair.
1. Reappointment of incumbent chair
a. The committee obtains a written statement indicating the incumbent's willingness
to serve for another term.
b. If the incumbent indicates willingness to serve, the committee circulates his/her
statement to the voting faculty along with a mail ballot on the question, containing
the simple alternatives YES and NO.
c. If a simple majority of those eligible to vote, vote to reappoint the incumbent, the
committee informs the dean of the SOE and the chair of the department in writing
that the department recommends the incumbent's reappointment. If the vote is tied,
the tie is reported. The committee reports the result of the vote to the department
faculty at the next scheduled department meeting.
d. If a simple majority of those eligible to vote, vote to not reappoint the incumbent,
the committee informs the dean of the SOE and the chair of the department in
writing that the department does not recommend the incumbent's reappointment.
The committee reports the result of the vote to the department faculty at the next
scheduled department meeting.
2
e. Because the faculty vote is only a recommendation, the administration can support
or deny the recommendation. If the person recommended is unacceptable to the
administration, upon notification the committee initiates the procedures below for
appointment of a new chair.
2. Appointment of a new chair from within the department
a. The Faculty Affairs Committee implements these procedures if (1) the incumbent
chair succumbs, resigns, or is unwilling to serve an additional term; (2) the
incumbent's reappointment is not recommended by a simple majority of the
department; or (3) the reappointment of the incumbent is denied by the dean.
b. The committee asks the tenured members of the voting faculty if they are willing to
serve as chair.
c. Having established a list of those willing to serve as chair, the committee prepares
a mail ballot on which each voting faculty member has the opportunity to nominate
up to three names from the list.
d. The final candidates for chair are the three persons receiving the most nominations.
e. The committee arranges an open interview attended by the members of the
department with each final candidate at a time and place convenient to the voting
faculty.
f. Using campus mail ballots, the committee conducts balloting (including run-offs)
to result in one candidate's receiving a majority of the votes of those eligible to
vote. Ballots shall include the option "None of the Above." Ballots will be tallied
by a committee member who is not a candidate.
g. The committee notifies the faculty of the recommendation.
h. The committee forwards the name of this candidate to the dean. If the
administration finds this candidate unacceptable, steps f-h are reiterated with this
candidate's name eliminated.
3. Appointment of a new chair from outside of the department
a. The department faculty affairs committee will work with the dean to explore the
procedures and process to select a new chair from outside of the department.
C. Coordinators: Appointed by, and serve at the discretion of the chair of the Department of
Educational Studies. General guidelines for appointment of coordinators will involve the
expertise, background, respective teaching loads of the individual faculty, and
recommendation of the program faculty. Designated coordinators are determined by the
internal needs of each program, with the approval of the Chair. The central purpose of the
position is to provide leadership to a designated activity or program need.
3
1. Designated coordination areas are:
a. Undergraduate Elementary Education
b. Undergraduate Secondary Education
c. Graduate Elementary and Secondary Education
2. Duties of Coordinators:
a. Along with the Chair, facilitate the scheduling of courses paying particular
attention to courses that are offered in multiple programs areas or departments
(Foundations, Special Education, W200, F200 etc.)
b. Recommend to the chair actions involving associate faculty in the area.
c. Supporting and monitoring the work of associate faculty members.
d. Supervise the area syllabi and curriculum in relation to licensing standards and
accreditation standards.
e. Recommend to the chair issues involving courses and instructors in the area.
f. Oversee program student handbooks, updates and revisions.
g. In collaboration with the Associate Dean, the coordinator will supervise the
maintenance of the program assessment system and create output reports from the
UAS related to the area.
h. To be a central contact point for inquiries and student needs pertaining to the
program.
i. In collaboration with the Associate Dean, the coordinator will assist with the
relevant accreditation processes.
3. Compensation: (see Reassigned Time VI.C)
a. Coordinators’ duties are viewed as service to the program or department and are
typically not provided with release time for their administrative duties. However, if
workloads become prohibitive to the faculty member’s ability to accomplish
his/her teaching and research obligations (such as during an accreditation review),
release time may be granted at the discretion of the chair and dependent on the
availability of departmental funds (see Reassigned Time VI.C).
b. Depending on the coordinator’s workload, merit pay may be recognized in the
“excellence” service category in acknowledgment of the extraordinary effort of the
faculty member.
E. Faculty Meetings. Faculty meetings of the department may be called by:
1. the chair of the department.
2. a standing faculty committee.
3. a majority of the voting faculty.
Except in cases of emergency, the department chairperson will inform all voting members of
his/her absence prior to scheduled Department Meeting. In the absence of the department
chair, the elected department secretary will call the meeting to order. In the event the
4
department secretary also is absent, a tenured faculty member present at the meeting should
call the meeting to order. After the meeting is called to order, a chairperson pro tem, who
will hold office during that session, will be nominated and seconded from the floor. If more
than one person is willing to serve in this capacity, all must receive nomination and second.
Preferably, faculty nominated and seconded should be tenured. A simple majority vote will
determine who will serve as chairperson pro tem; in the case more than one faculty member
is nominated, a vote by ballot will be used.
F. Voting members. At the departmental level, voting members of the faculty consist of all
full-time tenured or tenure-track faculty, and administrative and professional staff who are
also teaching faculty. This would include voting at departmental meetings and committee
meetings at the departmental level. The exception for voting would be in instances of
promotion and tenure decisions where only tenured and tenured track faculty have voting
privileges. Adjuncts, continuing lecturers, and visiting professors do not have voting
privileges at any decision level.
III. FACULTY COMMITTEES
The standing committees of the department are charged with discussing and exploring policies
and decisions that directly affect the Department of Educational Studies. In situations where
issues would impact the SOE as a whole, or programs in the Department of Educational
Studies (ES), the respective department committee will work in conjunction with the
appropriate SOE or Professional Studies Committee or program. In the fall, the chair of the
department will poll the faculty and request each member’s preferences for assignment to one
of the three standing committees.
A. Procedures:
a. Faculty committees must be convened in the first two weeks of the Fall semester by
the member whose name appears first in the alphabet in order to elect a chair. The
name of the chair of the committee is to be reported to the department chair and to all
department faculty.
b. Votes will be made by motion and the vote recorded.
c. Decisions require a majority of the committee members.
d. Minutes are to be forwarded to the faculty of the committee and are made available to
other faculty at their request.
e. Decisions will be recommended to the voting faculty. Approval by the faculty will
also be by simple majority.
f. Faculty must see any documents to be voted upon one week prior to the faculty
meeting. Absentee ballots will be allowed for any faculty not present at the meeting.
g. Recommendations other than those acted upon by a committee may be brought
forward at a faculty meeting by other faculty.
h. Concerns of other faculty may be presented to a committee based upon prior notice
within a time frame designated by the committee Chair.
B. Faculty Affairs Committee
5
b. Membership: The department chair will poll the faculty to determine their interest in
serving on this committee. The department Chair shall not serve on this committee but
may appear before the committee at their request for specific feedback or clarification.
b. Chair: Elected by the committee at the first meeting.
c. Responsibilities:



To conduct elections for the department, School of Education and university
committees;
Advise the department and the department chair on other matters concerning faculty
welfare and development;
With input from the department Chair, the Faculty Affairs Committee will identify at
least three tenured or tenure track faculty to serve on the search committee for tenure
track faculty lines;
Annually review governance, merit, and promotion and tenure documents, revising as
necessary (for vote by the full departmental faculty).
C. Academic Affairs Committee
a. Membership: The department chair will poll the faculty to determine their interest in
serving on this committee. The department chair shall not serve on this committee but
may provide input at the committee’s request. The department chair serves ex-officio,
without vote.
b. Chair: Elected by the committee at the first meeting.
c. Responsibilities:





Review and recommend new course and program requests and modifications for vote
by the full departmental faculty;
Review and recommend university bulletin revisions and report to the departmental
faculty;
Review, recommend and update curriculum check-sheets to correspond with current
degree requirements;
Review, establish and oversee forms and procedures for transfer students.
Review and recommend on any other matters pertaining to curriculum.
D. Student Affairs Committee
a. Membership: The department chair will poll the faculty to determine their interest in
serving on this committee.
b. Chair: Elected by the committee at the first meeting.
c. Responsibilities:


Select and oversee ad hoc committees to deal with student issues involving
department policies and make recommendations to the chair and/or the faculty.
Create and implement strategies for increasing student enrollment and retention.
6
E. Ad Hoc Committees
The department chair may organize ad hoc committees for the purpose of pursuing
specific tasks in the department, such as faculty research, technological applications, the
promotion of scholarship, grant applications, space utilization, fund raising, or the pursuit
of new areas of certification. Standing committees may also establish ad hoc committees
to pursue specific tasks. Within these ad hoc committees, membership may include any
members of the School of Education. No ad hoc committee shall supplant any of the three
permanent faculty standing committees’ duties. The standing committees are Faculty
Affairs, Academic Affairs, and Student Affairs.
IV. FACULTY REVIEW
A. Promotion and Tenure
1. Procedure
Procedures for promotion and tenure follow the timeline as adopted from the SOE
procedures (see the SOE Policy Handbook IV.A).
2. The promotion and tenure process advances through the following assessment points
by the recommended dates listed in the text below:
a. Department P&T Committee
b. Department Chair
c. SOE P&T Committee
d. SOE Dean
e. IPFW P&T Committee
f. VCAA
g. Chancellor
3. The Candidate for promotion and/or tenure should notify the department chair of their
intent early enough to allow the case to be submitted to the Department of Educational
Studies by September 15. Candidates are encouraged to begin preparing their case and
seeking external letters of review during the spring semester prior to the submission of
the case in the fall. For guidelines in soliciting external review letters, refer to OAA’s
document titled “Best Practices in External Review Letters.”
4. The department chair will convene a departmental meeting to form a P&T Committee
consisting of all tenured faculty members. The department chair will participate as an
ex officio member but may not vote. If, by established departmental criteria, fewer
than three persons are eligible to serve on either departmental committee, the
department shall submit to the dean the names of faculty members from other
departments who it deems suitable to serve on the concerned departmental committee.
From the list, the dean shall appoint enough Faculty members to bring the committee
to three.
7
5. The Department P&T Committee will elect a chair to preside over the P&T meetings,
conduct necessary votes, and report the vote1 in a letter to the department chair by
October 1. The letter approved by the whole committee will include an explanation of
the majority and minority opinion as represented by the vote.
6. The department chair will write a separate evaluation of the candidate. The chair’s
evaluation, along with the Department P&T Committee’s vote and letter of
explanation, will be forwarded to the SOE P&T Committee by October 15.
7. The SOE P&T Committee shall consist of three tenured members from Educational
Studies and three tenured members from Professional Studies, all elected by the SOE
tenure and tenure-track faculty. The SOE Leadership Committee will conduct the
election process. Prospective P&T Committee members may be nominated by others
or by themselves. If by established criteria, fewer than three persons from each
department are eligible to serve on the SOE P&T committee, the respective
department(s) shall submit to the dean the names of the Faculty members from other
departments whom it deems suitable to represent the department by serving on the
SOE P&T committee. From the list, the dean shall appoint enough Faculty members
to bring the respective department’s members on the SOE P&T committee to three.
8. The SOE P&T Committee shall review P&T cases, solicit input from the rest of the
tenured and tenure-track faculty, and vote on the case(s). The vote, plus a letter of
explanation written by the SOE P&T Committee, will be forwarded to the Dean of the
SOE, along with the letter of the department chair, and the vote and letter of the
Department P&T Committee by October 30.
9. The SOE dean will forward an independent evaluation of a P&T case, along with
departmental and school level assessments, to the Campus Promotion and Tenure Sub
Committee before November 12.
B. Promotion and Tenure Guidelines
Preamble
Given that the University, the School of Education, and the Department of Educational
Studies are self-governing entities, each full-time faculty member is expected to participate
in the shared responsibilities of such governance. In accepting these responsibilities, each
faculty member will strive to participate fully in the democratic processes that are necessary
if the academic community's core values of teaching, research/scholarship/creative
endeavor, and service are to be realized. By valuing such deliberative aspects of democracy
as conversation, reasoned discourse, and debate, we center our work around professionalism,
1
According to Senate Document 88-13, Procedures for Promotion and Tenure, 2.3, “The deliberations of
committees at all levels shall be strictly confidential, and only the chair may communicate a committee’s decision to the
candidate and to the next level. Within the confidential discussions of the committees, each member’s vote on a case
shall be openly declared.” Abstention votes are not allowed.
8
fairness, integrity, honesty, and civil respect for one another and other parties, such as
students.
“The central functions of an academic community are learning, teaching, and scholarship.
They must be characterized by reasoned discourse, intellectual honesty, mutual respect, and
openness to constructive change. By accepting membership in this community, an
individual neither surrenders rights nor escapes fundamental responsibilities as a citizen, but
acquires additional rights as well as responsibilities to the entire University community.
They do not require the individual to be passive and silent. They do require recognition of
how easily an academic community can be violated.” (IU Academic Handbook, p.46)
We in the Department of Educational Studies are committed to the School of Education
Conceptual Framework that guides our programs. Although we encourage these attributes
in our students, faculty within the department should also be committed to: 1) fostering a
democratic, just, inclusive learning community among its students, faculty, and staff, and
with all other stakeholders in the educational enterprise; 2) the integration of crucial habits
of mind in all aspects of the teaching/learning process; 3) understanding and encouraging the
use of pedagogy creatively, and thereby ensuring active learning, conceptual understanding,
and meaningful growth; 4) immersing educators in nurturing learning communities that
deepen knowledge, and encourage on-going intellectual, emotional, and personal growth; 5)
encouraging experiences that reflect the diversity of educators, students, and schools into all
aspects of the curriculum, and help educators to assess and reflect their experiences; and 6)
developing leaders within the profession and the community.
This document shall be distributed in writing to each faculty member upon becoming a
member of the SOE faculty. Nothing in this document is to be construed as being in conflict
with the criteria, policies, and procedures governing the reappointment, tenure, and
promotion of faculty as set forth in the relevant documents of Indiana University or with
those of IPFW as defined in OAA Memorandum 04-3 (Guidelines for Reappointment
Review), SD 88-25 (Criteria for Tenure and Promotion), SD 94-3 (Promotion and Tenure
Guidelines), OAA Memorandum 99-1 (Promotion and Tenure Dossier Format Guidelines),
OAA Memorandum 03-2 (Examples for Documenting and Evaluating Teaching), OAA
Memorandum 04-2 (Examples for Documenting and Evaluating Service), OAA
Memorandum 05-6 (Examples for Documenting Research, Scholarship, and Creative
Endeavor).
Faculty involved in the promotion and tenure assessment process will hold individual
recommendations, committee deliberations, decisions, reviews, and voting outcomes in the
strictest confidence.
1.
General Definitions
a.
Teaching
Teaching is a multidimensional issue that is fundamental to the mission of the
School of Education. Teaching can no longer be defined only as the
transmission of theoretical and practical knowledge. It also includes a spirit
of scholarly inquiry which leads the teacher to develop and strengthen course
9
content in the light of developments in the field in order to improve learning.
Effective teachers are co-learners with their students as they investigate and
participate in the teaching-learning process. Teachers develop personal
skills, techniques, and theories to enhance the teaching-learning process
while encouraging the development of them in our students. The effective
teacher continuously engages in learning and continuously engages students
in learning and is also one who guides and inspires students and stimulates
their intellectual interest and enthusiasm.
b.
Research/ Scholarship/Creative Endeavor
Research informs and improves the educational community by generating
and disseminating theoretical and practical knowledge. It can be a systematic
study directed toward more complete scientific knowledge of understanding
of the subject of focus. The scholarship of knowledge integration also
includes empirical, critical, or expressive activity in a variety of areas that
explores the full range of social, cultural, historical, and literary/artistic
pursuits common to the humanities and recognized by scholars in the field.
The effective researcher demonstrates a well-defined agenda. In the School
of Education, co-authored and/or or collaborative projects are viewed as
contributing to the evidence of scholarly productivity and collegiality;
however, faculty are also encouraged to demonstrate their ability to pursue
independent projects.
c.
Service
Although service may be integrated into a candidate’s scholarly activity or
teaching agenda, the definition that follows distinguishes this activity from
teaching and research/scholarship/creative endeavor. Service can be defined
as taking an active role in the department or on campus that includes
leadership activities and experiences. Service to the school/university allows
a faculty member to participate in the governance process and to voice
positions unique to the school of education. Service should advance the
mission of the department and the institution and can also occur at the
community, state, regional, and national levels through contributions to
professional organizations related to the candidate’s area(s) of expertise.
Candidates should come to see their teaching, research/scholarship/creative endeavor and
service activities as inseparable with each logically and appropriately supporting the other.
However, it is the responsibility of candidates to clarify and distinguish among these three
categories and to provide their best argument, supported by documentation, that they have
met or exceeded the expected criteria at each decision point (reappointment, promotion and
tenure).
2.
Criteria for Tenure and Promotion
Teaching, research/scholarship/creative endeavor, and service are long-standing
University promotion criteria. A candidate for tenure must show satisfactory
10
performance in teaching, research/scholarship/creative endeavor, and service while
demonstrating excellence in at least one of these categories is required for
promotion. In all cases, the candidate’s area of excellence must be assessed through
comprehensive and rigorous external peer review. Tenure and promotion are
typically sought at the same time although the awarding of tenure and promotion are
separate decisions. The duration of the probationary period and the time needed to
build a record of teaching, research/scholarship/creative endeavor, and service
meriting promotion to associate professor are equal, and the university can address
the separate decisions simultaneously. Although tenure and promotion are separate
decisions, tenure without promotion will generally not be conferred unless the
candidate provides a strong promise of achieving promotion in rank in the near
future. Promotion to any rank is recognition of achievement since being hired at
IPFW and indicates that the individual is capable of accepting greater responsibilities
and demonstrating accomplishments in the future.
The candidate for tenure must show satisfactory achievement in each of the three
areas of teaching, research/scholarship/creative endeavor, and service. A
recommendation to award tenure is based upon the following evidence and criteria
established in the School of Education.
a.
Teaching
Satisfactory. IPFW faculty are expected to be effective teachers and to have
demonstrated a significant commitment to teaching. Multiple measures of evidence
for satisfactory teaching should include an assessment on the dimensions of the (a)
substantive and (b) pedagogical aspects of teaching indicating on-going growth and
development. Efforts toward continuous teaching improvement and development of
instructional innovations are encouraged and should be evaluated overtime for
impact. Specifically,
1.
2.
3.
4.
Candidates provide multiple measures of teaching effectiveness as
evidence of continuing growth as a teacher;
Candidates summarize comprehensive student evaluation data for
each course taught. The data are analyzed for patterns, trends, and/or
evidence of student learning;
i.
On a 5-point course evaluation scale (1= poor; 5 = excellent)
candidates receive evaluation scores consistently at or above
3.5;
ii.
Qualitative student comments indicate patterns of strengths,
abilities, and positive impact;
Candidates respond to and/or act on feedback from peers, on-campus
and off-campus, demonstrating how they have improved their
teaching;
Candidates show evidence of continuous course and/or curriculum
development; and
11
5.
b.
Candidates document further evidence of satisfactory teaching (see
Appendix B - Sources for Evidence for Promotion and Tenure:
Teaching).
Research/Scholarship/Creative endeavor
Satisfactory. The evidence establishes that the faculty member has developed a
program of research/scholarship/creative endeavor in a specific field and has
contributed to that field either some original inquiry or unique interpretations or
synthesis that are contributions to the dissemination of new knowledge. Progress
beyond the doctoral dissertation should be evident in both publications and
presentations.
The faculty member should have established a record of publications and
presentations. Candidates should provide a minimum of three published works -appropriate to the discipline – in quality journals and/or with quality publishers to be
satisfactory in research/scholarship/creative endeavor. However, the quality of
production is considered more important than mere quantity; both should be
considered when evaluating research/scholarship/creative endeavor. The faculty
member should have a clearly established agenda and should show promise of
continued development as an independent scholar. Where appropriate to the
discipline, the potential to compete for grant and/or contract support for
research/scholarship/creative endeavor has been demonstrated. The following can be
used to evaluate the work.
1.
The quality of the published research/scholarship/creative endeavor.
Considerations include: the rigor of the peer review involved in the
publication; the appropriateness and status or reputation of the journal
or publisher (e.g., acceptance rate, where journal is indexed, ranking
of journal); the commentary from peer or outside reviewers on the
importance and impact of the published work; and indicators that the
work is cited by others and/or has had an impact on the field.
2.
The quantity of the published research/scholarship/creative endeavor.
Considerations include: whether the number of publications and
presentations, considering the discipline and the nature of the work,
are appropriate to the rank; and whether the record demonstrates a
generally sustained flow of work (after due consideration for the
nature of the work and review/publication timetables). Again, the
quality of the work is more important than quantity, but the amount of
the research/scholarship/creative endeavor produced is to be
considered in context with the quality/value of the work.
3.
Independence of output. Considerations include whether the faculty
member has moved beyond the simple extension of his/her doctoral
work and established a clear research agenda. Both single-authored
and co-authored works are valued. Co-authorship with collaborators
12
should follow the norms of the field. In each case the faculty member
should explain his/her contribution to the published work.
c.
Service
Satisfactory. IPFW faculty are expected to take an active role in the department
beyond teaching and research/scholarship/creative endeavor. They are encouraged to
contribute their expertise to the School of Education, university, community, state,
and/or nation and to participate in professional organizations. Service to the
profession extends the reputation of the university, advances the profession, and
allows the faculty member to encounter emerging ideas. Service to the community
places a faculty member in situations where theory is translated into practice. It
compels the faculty member to recognize problems confronting the field of
education. Therefore, satisfactory service includes evidence of:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
3.
Executing duties assigned by the Chair and Dean (e.g., program
assessment);
Contributing to the day-to-day governance of the department, school,
and university;
Serving on multiple department, school, or campus-wide committees;
Participating in and/or leading professional organizations; and
Showing evidence of interacting with the community in a manner that
promotes the School of Education at IPFW.
Criteria for Promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor
Criteria for promotion from assistant to associate professor are based upon performance
while employed at IPFW and the potential for continued professional growth. When
considered for promotion, the individual should be assessed in regard to all three criteria
from the preceding section (teaching, research/scholarship/creative endeavor, and service).
Favorable action should result when the individual has demonstrated a level of excellence
appropriate to the proposed rank in at least one area and satisfactory performance in the
remaining areas. In considering the criteria for teaching, research/scholarship/creative
endeavor, and service, evidence used to support a tenure case may also be used as partial
support for a candidate considered for promotion along with the additional requirements
specified below.
According to IPFW documents, the basis for promotion is a record of satisfactory teaching,
research/scholarship/creative endeavor, and service with excellence exhibited in one of these
areas. However, the Department of Educational Studies strongly suggests that candidates
choose teaching or research as an area of excellence for promotion to Associate Professor.
In order to appropriately assess an area of excellence, external reviews must be gained for
that area. For example, if a candidate is seeking promotion based on excellence in teaching,
then documents and other sources of evidence related to teaching must be submitted for
external review.
a.
Excellence in Teaching
13
If teaching is the primary basis for promotion to Associate Professor, the candidate’s
performance should demonstrate meeting all of the criteria for satisfactory teaching
as well as the following criteria for excellence:
1.
2.
3.
4.
b.
Additional measures (beyond section 2.a) of teaching effectiveness and
outstanding performance as a classroom teacher.
On a 5-point course evaluation scale (1= poor; 5 = excellent), candidates
documenting excellence in the classroom should receive evaluation scores
consistently above 4.0 accompanied by strong patterns of positive qualitative
comments.
Evidence toward a national visibility in teaching should include
documentation of an active role in communicating instructional efforts and
innovations nationally or internationally. This documentation should include
scholarly publication(s) (see 2.b for definitions regarding quality, quantity,
and independence) and refereed presentation(s) about the teaching-learning
process in addition to the three publications required for being satisfactory in
research.
Documentation of mentoring students to present or publish
research/scholarship/creative endeavor projects in a scholarly venue.
Excellence in Research/Scholarship/Creative Endeavor
If research/scholarship/creative endeavor is the primary basis for promotion to
Associate Professor, the candidate’s performance should demonstrate meeting all of
the criteria for satisfactory research/scholarship/creative endeavor (see 2.b for
definitions regarding quality, quantity, and independence) as well as the following
criteria for excellence:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
c.
The faculty member should have established a record of presentations and
publications, with a minimum of three additional published works in quality
journals and/or with quality publishers (i.e., minimum total equals six
publications).
The faculty member’s work suggests that a clear research agenda with
continuity and connection between individual projects has been established.
External reviews are generally positive about the quality of the work and
indicate that the faculty member has established a national or international
reputation as an original contributor through research/scholarship/creative
endeavor.
The faculty member shows promise of continued development as a
researcher/ scholar.
Where appropriate to the discipline, the faculty member has demonstrated the
ability to compete favorably for grant and/or contract support for the
research.
Excellence in Service
14
If service is the primary basis for promotion to Associate Professor, the candidate’s
performance should demonstrate meeting all of the criteria for satisfactory service as
well as the following criteria for excellence:
Promotion to Associate Professor based upon excellence in service is based on
substantial evidence that the candidate provides leadership and service in multiple
dimensions that result in recognition for the candidate or IPFW or the candidate’s
professional organization. Candidates show evidence of more than a normal amount,
range, and scope of leadership in service and an assessment of outstanding quality or
effectiveness of that leadership. Evidence of a developing reputation for excellence
in professional services beyond the local level should be presented. Service activities
are often tied to one’s field of knowledge and ability to relate this knowledge to
professional activity for the betterment of the field of education.
4.
Criteria for Promotion from Associate Professor to Full Professor
Tenured faculty members at an associate level may seek promotion to full professor. In
rare cases, individuals hired at an associate level without tenure may seek tenure and
promotion to full professor at the same time. Criteria for promotion from associate to full
professor are based upon performance and continued professional growth and achievement
in one’s field since an individual’s last promotion that is externally recognized by one’s
professional peers. When considered for promotion, the individual should be assessed in
regard to the criteria from the preceding section of 2.a. Satisfactory in Teaching, 2.b.
Satisfactory in Research/Scholarship/Creative Endeavor, and 2.c. Satisfactory in Service.
Favorable action should result when the individual has demonstrated a level of excellence
appropriate to the proposed rank in at least one area and satisfactory performance in the
remaining areas.
According to IPFW documents, the basis for promotion is a record of satisfactory teaching,
research/scholarship/creative endeavor, and service with excellence exhibited in one of these
areas - teaching, research, or service.
In order to appropriately assess an area of excellence, external reviews must be gained for
that area. For example, if a candidate is seeking promotion based on excellence in teaching,
then documents and other sources of evidence related to teaching must be submitted for
external review.
a.
Excellence in Teaching
If teaching is the primary basis for promotion to Full Professor, the candidate’s
performance should demonstrate meeting all of the criteria for satisfactory teaching
(section 2.a) as well as the following criteria for excellence:
1. Additional measures (beyond section 2.a) of teaching effectiveness and
outstanding performance as a classroom teacher.
2. On a 5-point course evaluation scale (1= poor; 5 = excellent), candidates
documenting excellence in the classroom should receive evaluation scores
15
3.
4.
5.
6.
b.
consistently above 4.0 accompanied by strong patterns of positive qualitative
comments.
Evidence of a national visibility in teaching should include documentation of an
active role in communicating instructional efforts and innovations nationally or
internationally. This documentation should include a scholarly book(s), revisions
of it, or at least two scholarly publication(s) (see 2.b for definitions regarding
quality, quantity, and independence), and refereed presentation(s), which address
the teaching-learning process in addition to the three publications required for
being satisfactory in research.
External reviews are generally positive about the quality of the work and indicate
that the faculty member has established a national or international reputation as
an original contributor to teaching.
Documentation of mentoring students to present or publish
research/scholarship/creative endeavor projects in a scholarly venue.
Where appropriate to the discipline, the faculty member has demonstrated the
ability to compete favorably for grant(s) and/or contract support for teaching.
Excellence in Research/Scholarship/Creative Endeavor
If research/scholarship/creative endeavor is the primary basis for promotion to Full
Professor, the candidate’s performance should demonstrate meeting all of the
criteria for satisfactory research/scholarship/creative endeavor (see 2.b for
definitions regarding quality, quantity, and independence) as well as the following
criteria for excellence:
1. The faculty member should have established and documented a record of peerreviewed publications and presentations. This documentation should include a
scholarly book(s), new edition(s) of book(s), or at least four scholarly
publication(s) in quality journals and/or with quality publishers (i.e., minimum
total equals seven publications), and refereed presentation(s).
2. The faculty member’s work maintains a clear research agenda with continuity
and connection between or among projects.
3. External reviews are generally positive about the quality of the work and indicate
that the faculty member has established a national or international reputation as
an original contributor through research/scholarship/creative endeavor.
4. The faculty member shows continued development as a researcher/ scholar.
5. Where appropriate to the discipline, the faculty member has demonstrated the
ability to compete favorably for grant(s) and/or contract support for the research.
c.
Excellence in Service
If service is the primary basis for promotion to Full Professor, the candidate’s
performance should demonstrate meeting all of the criteria for satisfactory service
(section 2.c) as well as the following criteria for excellence:
Promotion to Full Professor based upon excellence in service documents substantial
evidence that the candidate provides leadership and service in multiple dimensions
16
that result in recognition for the candidate’s achievement, academic unit, campus, or
professional organization. Candidates show evidence of more than a normal amount,
range, and scope of leadership in service and an assessment of outstanding quality or
effectiveness of that leadership. Evidence of an established reputation for excellence
in professional service beyond the local level should be presented. Service activities
are often tied to one’s field of knowledge and ability to relate this knowledge to
professional activity for the betterment of the field of education.
1. To demonstrate the intellectual work of service, the faculty member should have
established a record of publications and refereed presentations related to service.
Publications include an institutional report, a scholarly textbook(s), or at least
two scholarly publication(s) (see 2.b for definitions regarding quality, quantity,
and independence). This documentation is in addition to the three publications
required for being satisfactory in research.
2. The faculty member’s work establishes or maintains a service agenda.
3. External reviews are generally positive about the quality of the work and indicate
that the faculty member has established a national or international reputation as
an original contributor through service.
4. The faculty member shows continued development as a leader in service at
multiple levels.
5. Where appropriate to the discipline, the faculty member has demonstrated the
ability to compete favorably for grant(s) and/or significant collaboration(s) (e.g.,
with external organizations, fundraisers, etc.) for the service.
C.
Reappointment/Non-Reappointment Guidelines and Timelines
The reappointment process and agreement is essentially a 1-year contract that the university
completes to endorse faculty employment for the upcoming year. During the pre-tenure or
“probationary” years, they will be asked to submit an annual report of accomplishments in
the areas of teaching, research/scholarship/creative endeavor, and service and a current vita.
The reappointment materials are officially reviewed by the Department Chair and the Dean
and recommendations are made to the office of the VCAA to reappoint or renew the 1-year
contract or to dissolve the contract. When faculty first arrive on campus, they perceive the
reappointment process as occurring very quickly so they should be diligent to remain
organized and productive from Day 1. Plenty of guidance is available from existing faculty
and administrative sources to assist faculty in understanding what is required so that they
move toward tenure and promotion in a productive and systematic process.
Because the initial reappointments occur very quickly (the first in November of the first year
and the second in August or September beginning the second year), faculty are encouraged
from the first day to organize information in the three categories of teaching,
research/scholarship/creative endeavor, and service. Given that the first reappointment
occurs within the first 3-4 months of the first teaching year, course teaching evaluations for
the first semester will not yet be available. However, faculty can include copies of syllabi, a
current vitae, and a list of any creative/scholarship/creative endeavor projects, grants, or
presentations that they are currently pursuing or plan to pursue in the near future, and early
17
service activities. After the first two reappointments, remaining reappointments fall within
the same time frame as the annual reviews so the same documents can be used for both.
The key to annual reappointment is one’s individual ability to organize the materials and to
show productivity and progress toward tenure in the three central areas of teaching,
research/scholarship/creative endeavor, and service. See the specific guidelines for
Reappointment Review on the VCAA webpage under Memorandum No. 04-3 or Appendix
C.
Candidates for tenure track reappointments are expected to provide the following
documentation to the Department Chair and the Dean of the School of Education, according
to the schedule provided by the Department Chair:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
A current curriculum vita,
All current and previous annual reviews (peer reviews, Chair, Dean, and
VCAA’s), with supporting evidence for the most recent year in the areas of
teaching, research/scholarship/creative endeavor, and service,
All previous reappointment recommendations from all levels,
All raw and summary student evaluation forms for the most recent year, and
Any additional documents which provide evidence that the candidate is
meeting criteria for teaching, research/scholarship/creative endeavor, and
service by the candidate.
These materials should be categorized and organized based upon the Department of
Educational Studies and the IPFW campus Promotion and Tenure Documents.
For reappointment each year, the Chair of Educational Studies completes a written
evaluation of each non-tenured faculty member after reviewing their materials in regard to
teaching, research/scholarship/creative endeavors, and service. This evaluation should be
perceived by the faculty member as being a valuable resource in assisting them to address
problems or achieve goals that both they and the administration consider to be important.
The chair should meet with the faculty member to discuss the evaluation which will then
be forwarded to the dean. The dean writes an independent evaluation after reviewing the
chair’s evaluation along with the faculty member’s reappointment materials. The dean’s
evaluation serves both a formative and summative purpose. The dean’s evaluation
provides suggestions for improving or enhancing faculty performance to aid the faculty
member in developing strengths or overcoming weaknesses.
After meeting with the faculty member to discuss his/her evaluation, the dean forwards the
dean’s and chair’s reappointment evaluations, based on the faculty member’s materials, to
the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.
Copies of evaluations and other related personnel action forms are forwarded to all faculty
members each year and originals are placed in the confidential personnel file of the faculty
member. This confidential file is maintained in the School of Education office.
Timeline for Reappointment
18
Specific dates will be announced each year depending on the calendar and university
requirements. Note that for the first two reappointments, the reappointment and Annual
Review for merit occur at two separate times. From the third reappointment through
promotion and tenure, reappointment and merit review occur at the same point with the
same document. Unsatisfactory performance or progress is grounds for nonreappointment at any point, beginning in year one. Faculty should refer to OAA
Memorandum No. 04-3 in the Appendix for specific guidelines.
D.
Schedule of Review for Reappointment/Non-Reappointment for Tenure Track Faculty
1. Year 1 faculty reappointment materials are due to the chair November 1st of the first
semester (note: the Annual Review for merit is separate and is due in February). A
positive reappointment decision serves to insure employment for year 2 with faculty
notification in February. A non-reappointment decision serves as a 3- months notice.
2. Year 2 faculty reappointment materials are due to the chair by September 15th of the
second year (note: the Annual Review for merit is separate and is due in February). A
positive reappointment decision serves to insure employment for year 3 with faculty
notification in November. A non-reappointment decision serves as a 6-months notice.
Year 2 faculty reappointment materials are again due to the chair during the second
year of employment the second Friday in February in the form of the Annual Review
(note: this is three months after the second-year reappointment). A positive
reappointment serves to insure employment for year 4 with faculty notification in May.
A non-reappointment decision serves as a 1- year notice.
3. Year 3 faculty reappointment materials are due to the chair by the second Friday in
February and also serves to form the Annual Review. This annual review follows a
special format and serves as a comprehensive 3rd –year review. A comprehensive
department-based third year review prepared according to the Promotion and Tenure
dossier format outlined in OAA 99-1 is required in year 3 (See third-year review
guidelines). A positive reappointment serves to insure employment for year 5 with
faculty notification in May. A non-reappointment decision serves as a 1-year notice.
4. Year 4 faculty reappointment materials are due to the chair by the second Friday in
February and also serves to inform the Annual Review. A positive reappointment
serves to insure employment for year 6 with faculty notification in May. A nonreappointment serves as a 1-year notice.
5. Year 5 faculty reappointment materials are due to the chair by the second Friday in
February and also serves to inform the Annual Review. A positive reappointment
serves to insure employment for year 7 with faculty notification in May. A nonreappointment serves as a 1-year notice.
6. Year 6 faculty promotion and tenure dossier is due to the department in early fall.
Positive tenure decisions are announced in the spring. If tenure is denied, the end of
the probationary period is the day before the start of the fall contract date.
19
E. Annual Faculty Review (tenure-track faculty)
1. Each year, tenure-track faculty evaluate themselves in regard to teaching, research and
creative endeavor, and service activities. It is suggested that faculty members organize
their materials according to the format of the campus promotion and tenure document
(OAA Memorandum 93-1). Particularly during the tenure-track years, it is suggested
that faculty members use multiple means of documentation such as those listed in the
OAA Memorandum 93-1, Senate Document SD 94-3, and the School of Education and
Department of Educational Studies Guidelines to gather information to assess
performance relative to their own needs, goals, and objectives. The annual faculty report
should reflect accomplishments from the previous calendar year and should be
completed and submitted to the department chair by the second Friday in February.
2. Annually, each tenure-track faculty member has the option of selecting a peer review
committee (to include at least one tenured faculty member from the School of
Education), to provide feedback for the previous year’s activities in the areas of
teaching. research and creative endeavor, and service. The faculty member has the
option of retaining the peer feedback results or including this in the annual report which
is sent to the Department Chair and the Dean. Although the peer review committee is
optional with the exception of year 3, in practice, the peer review feedback is
recommended as one of the several sources of information in a comprehensive faculty
evaluation. The peer review committee should be selected by the faculty member to be
reviewed no later than the second week in January. The annual report materials should
be submitted to the peer review committee by the end of January. The annual report and
peer review are due to the chair by the second Friday in February.
F. Annual Peer Review Committees for Tenure-Track Faculty
1.
Membership
a. The faculty member to be reviewed will choose tenured or tenure track faculty
members to serve on their committee. At least one member of the committee must
be tenured within the Department of Educational Studies. A tenured member must
chair the committee.
b. The committee should be established by the second week of January.
2. The faculty member to be reviewed has the option to select the chair of their
committee.
3. Responsibilities of the peer-review committee.
a. The peer review committee should review the annual report documents provided
by the tenure track faculty member under review..
20
b. The written feedback of the committee should summarize teaching, research and
creative endeavor, and service for the calendar year and when possible, should
provide evaluative comments on progress toward promotion and tenure.
c. The written summative portion is to be submitted by the committee chair to the
other committee members for approval and signature, then presented to the faculty
member being reviewed. The reviewed faculty member may then choose to submit
the peer review with Annual Report to the chair of the department.
d. An informative verbal review will be presented informally by the chair of the
committee to the reviewed faculty member.
G. Each year the Chair of the Department of Educational Studies completes a written
evaluation of each tenure-track faculty member in regard to teaching, research and creative
endeavor, and service. This evaluation should be perceived by the faculty as being a
valuable resource in assisting them to address problems or to achieve goals that both they
and the administration consider to be important.
1. The Chair’s evaluation is send to the Dean. The Dean writes an independent evaluation
after reviewing the Chair’s evaluation along with the faculty member’s annual report
materials. The Dean’s evaluation serves both a formative and summative purpose. The
Dean’s evaluation provides suggestions for improving or enhancing faculty performance
to aid the faculty member in developing strengths or overcoming weaknesses.
2. The Dean sends the Dean’s and the Chair’s evaluation, based on the faculty member’s
annual report, to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.
3. Copies of evaluations and other related personnel action forms are forwarded to all
faculty members each year and originals are placed in the confidential personnel file of
the faculty member. This confidential file is maintained in the Dean’s office of the
School of Education.
H. Third Year Review Policy and Procedures
1. It is the policy of the faculty of the department to conduct a formal third-year review of
assistant professors. This review will take place prior to the faculty member’s third
Annual Review (after 2.5 years of employment), which allows the candidate
approximately 2.5 years to respond to recommendations in the review prior to submitting
a case for promotion and tenure. If the faculty member is officially bringing in years
from another institution, when possible, this review should take place at least two years
before P&T. The review committee’s conclusions and recommendations are not a direct
decision on the faculty member’s employment (or reappointment), but will be used by
the department chair as one point of data for evaluating the progress of the faculty
member.
2. Procedures
21
a. The faculty member under review selects a committee of three tenured faculty. Two
members must be from the department, and the chair must be a tenured member of
the department.
b. The faculty member will prepare a full case with appendices using the department’s
promotion and tenure criteria. This case will cover all information since being hired
at IPFW, previous material should be submitted if the faculty member is officially
bringing in years from another institution.
c. Due to the extra work involved in reviewing a third-year review, the case will be
given to the peer review committee by the end of the second week of January (as
compared to the end of January for the regular Annual Review).
d. The committee will review the case according to the department’s promotion and
tenure guidelines.
e. In a detailed summary letter, the committee will:
Report the candidate’s progress toward P&T (a summary of accomplishments),
Provide an evaluation of the faculty member’s likelihood of achieving tenure at the
current rate of production, using the promotion and tenure language of satisfactory
and excellence for each category of teaching, research and service,
Provide specific and detailed recommendations for the faculty member to achieve
promotion and tenure,
Provide a one-year peer review of the most recent calendar year, as described in the
peer review section, and
Provide a recommendation to the chair for or against reappointment of the faculty
member.
f. The whole committee will meet with the faculty member to review the letter by the
end of the first week of February.
g. The final letter, signed by all committee members, is forwarded to the faculty
member and department chair prior to the due date for the Annual Review (second
Friday in February). The faculty member may attach a written response to the
committee’s report.
I. Annual Faculty Reviews (tenured faculty)
Each year, tenured faculty evaluate themselves in regard to teaching, research and creative
endeavor, and service activities. It is suggested that faculty members organize their
materials according to the format of the campus promotion and tenure document (OAA
Memorandum 93-1). It is suggested that faculty members use multiple means of
documentation such as those listed in the OAA Memorandum 93-1, Senate Document SD
22
94-3, and the School of Education and Department of Educational Studies Guidelines to
gather information to assess performance relative to their own needs, goals, and objectives.
Tenured faculty at the rank of professor may, at their discretion, submit a current curriculum
vita with appropriate entries highlighted in lieu of a formal annual report. To be considered
for a merit increase however, tenured faculty at any rank must submit an annual report that
reviews the achievements in teaching, research and creative endeavor, and service. The
annual faculty report should reflect accomplishments from the previous calendar year and
should be completed and submitted to the department chair by the second Friday in
February.
1. The Chair will complete a written evaluation of the tenured faculty member’s annual
report documents.
2. The Chair will forward this evaluation and the faculty member’s annual report to the
Dean for review and evaluation.
J. Merit Evaluation Criteria
Each year, in the fall semester, the department Faculty Affairs Committee will review and
revise the department merit criteria document in determining merit raises. Ideally, the
faculty annual report serves as the central document that guides the Dean and/or Chair’s
decisions concerning merit raises. The Chair and/or Dean will communicate with each
faculty member to share the results of their evaluation of the annual report and to discuss
merit recommendations. Merit will be based upon achievement in teaching, research and
creative endeavor, and service for all faculty members. For additional information
concerning annual merit and salary allocation, faculty should consult the SOE governance
document.
V.
FACULTY
A. Tenure Track Faculty Search Process
1. When a faculty line becomes open, the Department Chair will request that the
departmental Faculty Affairs Committee form a search committee. The search
committee should be comprised of members with appropriate expertise in the content
area of the search, and in circumstances where the FAC feel it is important, faculty
from other departments. With input from the Chair of the Department, the Faculty
Affairs Committee will identify search committee membership.
2. The search committee chair should, if possible, be a faculty member with expertise in
the content area of the search.
3. Working in conjunction with the Chair, the search committee will write a position
announcement.
4. The search committee will then follow established university procedures on
conducting the search.
23
5. When the search committee has completed their work, they will submit to the
department chair either a statement of why the search failed, or a statement supporting
their conclusions on the selected candidate.
6. The Chair will review the committee’s recommendation. The Chair will write an
independent recommendation of the candidate and forward both documents to the
Dean for final approval.
7. With the approval of the Dean, the Chair will negotiate the initial contract and hire the
candidate.
8. If the Dean does not accept the committee’s recommendation, a meeting will be held
consisting of the committee, Chair, and Dean to clarify any possible issues. If the Dean
then chooses not to hire the recommended candidate, the search committee may either
call a failed search or recommend an alternative candidate.
B. Limited-Term Lecturers (“associate” or “adjunct” faculty), Continuing Lecturers, Clinical
Faculty & Administrative Staff with teaching responsibilities
1. Limited-Term Lecturers, Continuing Lecturers, Clinical Faculty, and Administrative
Staff with teaching responsibilities are defined as persons teaching courses for the
department who do not hold tenure track appointment. They possess academic
preparation and/or educational experience comparable to qualifications demanded of
resident faculty within the assigned area of instruction.
2. Limited Term Lecturers are hired on a semester by semester basis to teach specific
courses. These positions are half-time or less.
3. Continuing Lectures and Clinical Faculty are similar titles for full employees, halftime or more. They are hired for yearly or multi-year periods.
4. Administrative Staff with teaching responsibilities are currently defined as the Director
of the SOE Curriculum Lab and the Director of the SOE Transition to Teaching
Program. These positions are hired for yearly or multi-year periods.
5. Candidates for these positions submit a final transcript from their most recent
institution and at least three letters of recommendation from professionals who can
attest to the candidate’s professional competence.
6
The coordinators and faculty may suggest names of persons for teaching specific
courses to the department chair. Tenure-track department faculty must be granted
preference over associate faculty when one or more full-time faculty are available and
qualified to teach a particular course, as long as this is not an overload. A 7-day notice
will be provided if a change in course instructors is warranted.
7. The department chair evaluates credentials and letters of recommendation submitted
by candidates for these positions, will consult with faculty within the assigned area of
instruction, and has final approval on their hiring.
24
8. The Chair notifies the Lecturers/Clinical Faculty of the appointment and the Dean’s
secretary handles remuneration and paper work required by the university.
9. Staff for workshops and other academic activities carrying academic credit are
considered for approval at the same time the proposal for the workshop or activity is
submitted for approval.
10. The Dean’s secretary maintains a file for each Lecturer/Clinical Faculty. The file
includes the letters of recommendation, current syllabi, certification documents,
transcripts, vita, personnel information form, and previous campus teaching and
student evaluation reports.
11. The department chair distributes the handbook and/or other pertinent policy
information for Lecturers/Clinical faculty.
12. The department chair may appoint a faculty member to assist new Lecturers/Clinical
faculty, or may assist him/herself. Assistance may include syllabi used formerly in
courses, special characteristics of the program in which courses are offered,
information concerning clerical assistance, textbook orders, student evaluation of
courses and other matters of interest.
13. Limited-Term Lecturers are evaluated during each semester of employment. LimitedTerm Lecturers use a common student evaluation instrument distributed through the
dean’s office.
14. Continuing Lecturers/Clinical Faculty are evaluated each year in February, following
the Annual Review procedures for tenure-track faculty. Continuing Lecturers/Clinical
Faculty must use student evaluations and multiple methods of documenting their
teaching effectiveness similar to tenure-track faculty. Administrative staff with
teaching responsibilities will report to the Dean. Their teaching effectiveness will be
evaluated annually by the Dean or his/her designee.
15. The department chair may schedule a post-evaluation conference with each
Lecturer/Clinical Faculty to discuss his/her performance.
16. The chair may discuss reappointment of Lecturers/Clinical Faculty with other faculty
in the unit before a reappointment is made.
17. Student evaluations are considered as part of the basis for reappointment. A decision
on re-employment is made by the department chair after consulting, when necessary,
with faculty within the assigned area of instruction and the dean.
C. Grievances
Faculty grievances amongst faculty or faculty and students will follow the most recent
procedures outlined by the School of Education and IPFW.
25
VI. TEACHING
A. Staff Assignment Policy
1. Tenured fulltime faculty may choose either Option I (three, three-credit courses plus
.25 FTE of Research/Creative Endeavor per semester, during the academic year), or
Option II (four, three-credit courses with no research release time per semester, during
the academic year) except where defined differently by School or University policy.
2. Tenured faculty who choose Option I must document their required research and
creative endeavor activities each year.
3. The chair can make determination of Option I or II based on evidence of productivity
in research and scholarly endeavor.
4. Untenured tenure-track fulltime faculty are required to pursue Option I
5. Non tenure-track fulltime faculty (clinical faculty, continuing lecturers) have teaching
loads of 8 courses per academic year appointments, 10 for fiscal year appointments.
B. Teaching Assignments
1. The department will offer its core curriculum classes and all other degree classes
required for graduation on a timely basis.
2. Unless specified otherwise, teaching credit will be based on the number of student
contact hours, with one credit equaling 15 contact hours.
3. Due to their applied nature, practica and internships credits will be determined by the
respective programs based on licensing standards, professional association standards,
accreditation standards, or standards customary to the field.
4. Student teaching supervision in lieu of a teaching load will be equivalent to 2 students
per 1 hour load credit. Therefore a 3-hour credit class would be equivalent to the
supervision and evaluation of 6 student teachers.
5. Credit for supervising other 0 credit courses or practica will be assigned based on
student contact hours and the above formulas at the chair’s discretion.
6. Credit in team-taught courses will be divided proportionally among the involved
faculty.
7. Independent Study
Supervision of independent study courses may be treated as evidence of teaching
excellence; however, under current procedures, it constitutes an uncompensated
overload. For this reason, the department neither encourages nor, in most instances,
discourages supervision of these courses. Application to supervise an independent
study course should be made by means of the departmental form available for that
purpose. Approval by the department Chair is required. Applications for independent
study are expected to contain a detailed, explicit plan of work. Courses that duplicate
regular courses offered in the same or the next semester are discouraged.
8. Summer Teaching Policy
Summer teaching assignment decisions will be based on program needs, faculty
interest, potential enrollment and available funding. The assignments shall be made so
as to provide equal opportunity for department faculty members to participate in the
summer school program.
26
C. Reassigned Time
The chair may grant four kinds of reassigned time:
1. Research and Creative Endeavor
a. The normal research course load reduction is .25 FTE.
b. Additional course load reductions may be granted by the chair for other significant
research and creative endeavor proposals and funded research.
2. Departmental Program Development, special projects, or significant professional
service (e.g. accreditation reviews).
3. Funded Activity Underwritten by Non-Departmental Budgets, including research,
journal editing, service, extra-departmental teaching, and post-doctoral education.
4. Discharge of Administrative Responsibilities.
Due to the nature and scope of responsibilities, the following positions may receive
reassigned time for the discharge of administrative responsibilities (job description
guidelines to be on file.)
5. The Coordinators of Undergraduate Elementary and Secondary Education: reassigned
time may range from 3 to 6 credit hours per academic year.
6. The Coordinator of Graduate Elementary and Secondary Education: reassigned time
may range from 3 to 6 credit hours per academic year.
7. It is recognized that the policies relating to teaching assignments (section 5.1 above)
are guidelines along which the department Chair must exercise discretion and
judgment.
D. Workload Responsibilities of the Department Chair
1. Department chair will receive .50 FTE administrative time assignment as determined
by the Dean of the SOE. The chair is expected to teach the equivalent of 9 credit hours
during each 12-month fiscal year.
Note: Reassigned time will normally be taken from the teaching load unless requested
otherwise by the faculty member, and will be based upon the availability of additional
resources and personnel to accommodate the reduction. The department chair in
consultation with the faculty member will review the projected teaching load and
determine actual load based upon departmental goals, objectives, and needs, and upon
the weight and nature of special projects or assignments.
E. Faculty Absence from Scheduled Classes
1. Instructors are expected to meet their classes on the day and time and in the room
designated in the Schedule of Classes. If temporary room or time changes are made,
they should be announced in advance both to the students and to the department
secretary. The department Chair should be notified of changes to the published room
and time.
2. From time to time faculty may be away from campus during the academic term for
professional purposes (e.g., presenting a conference paper, service on a system
committee). Since such absences from class are normally known well in advance,
faculty are expected to arrange for a substitute instructor or alternative classroom
activity and to notify the department chair of the arrangements made.
27
5.2.3 Occasionally, the illness or severe weather may result in an unexpected faculty
absence from class. Under these circumstances, the faculty member should notify the
department chair and the Dean’s secretary. If at all possible, students should be
notified prior to the starting class time.
F. Syllabi
Any faculty or administrative staff with teaching responsibilities will provide syllabi for
all courses (including applied lessons) to students, the department chair, and the dean.
Syllabi should be distributed during the first class meeting.
G. Faculty Schedules and Office Hours
Faculty will schedule, post and maintain office hours each week to be determined by the
Chair. A copy of each faculty member's schedule will be provided to the department chair.
VII. STUDENTS
A. Student Advising
Student advisees matriculating on degree programs in the department will be assigned by
the respective program coordinators to appropriate tenured or tenure-track faculty
members for advising on a regular basis. Faculty advisors will be familiar with the
university's academic regulations, with department and school requirements for
graduation, and with certification requirements in their respective areas. Although no
faculty load credit is assigned for advising, it will be noted that time spent in advising is an
important element in a faculty member's instructional responsibilities.
B. Grades
Faculty will familiarize themselves with the statements concerning grades and grading
policy in the IPFW Bulletin and the most recent edition of the Indiana University
Academic Handbook.
Grade appeals most frequently occur when the instructor has not clearly stated a grading
policy or has changed the policy during the semester. Faculty will provide students with a
written statement (presumably on the course syllabus) detailing the factors that will
determine their final grades and will treat the statement as a contractual understanding
with the students, to be altered only with their knowledge and agreement.
C. Cheating, Plagiarism, Grade Appeals
The Indiana University Academic Handbook and IPFW's own academic regulations (see
the most recent version of Fort Wayne Senate Document SD 89-28--IPFW Code of
Student Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct--and the current IPFW Bulletin) define
these terms and the campus procedures appropriate for dealing with them.
28
VIII. MISCELLANEOUS
A. University Travel
All full-time faculty are eligible for reimbursement of some of the expenses (see
guidelines below) for attending professional conferences. The maximum amounts of
reimbursement are determined annually and are based on the funds for travel available in
the department's budget. When additional money is available, preference will be given to
faculty who are involved in professional activities at the event. Such involvement might
include presenting papers or workshops, performances, or serving as an organizational
officer.
1.
Faculty traveling to conferences may be reimbursed for items such as:




2.
transportation
lodging
subsistence
registration fees.
If funds are available, associate faculty may be reimbursed for


transportation
registration fees.
3.
University regulations govern the amount reimbursable in some categories. Consult
the Dean’s secretary for current regulations.
4.
All faculty who travel to professional meetings or on other university business,
whether or not they request reimbursement, must complete the "Authority to Travel"
form available in the department office. (Completion of this form is necessary to
activate the university's liability coverage for faculty.) This form should be submitted
to the department chair no later than two weeks prior to the commencement of travel.
B. Sabbatical Requests and Procedures
A sabbatical leave is not a leave which a faculty member automatically “earns” by having
been employed for a given period of time. Rather, it is an investment by the University I
the expectation that the sabbatical leave will significantly enhance the faculty member’s
capacity to contribute to the objectives of the University. .
In general, a statement of goals for the sabbatical, an outline of the type of evidence that
will be used to demonstrate how those goals will be achieved, and a statement of the
proposed use of the applicant’s time during the sabbatical period are required as part of the
sabbatical application. Acceptable programs for the use of time may include:
1.
Research on significant issues and problems, including pedagogical issues.
29
2.
3.
Important creative or descriptive work in any means of expression, for example,
writing, painting, and so forth.
Retraining in new domains of scholarship or creative endeavor in one’s own
discipline. Such retraining may be used to enhance one’s scholarship and/or one’s
teaching capabilities.
Faculty should see OAA Memorandum 05-5 located in the Appendix for specific IPFW
sabbatical guidelines.
Department Sabbatical Guidelines
Per Senate Document SD 06-19, each department or division should establish specific
criteria for the granting of sabbatical leaves that serve as the basis of evaluation for
applications coming from the department or division that are consistent with those found
in SD 06-14.
In the Department of Educational Studies, the following policies guide the review of
Sabbatical applications.
1.
Reasonable
timeline for
proposed
project
Opportunity
for
Professional
Development
Evidence of
using
institutional
resources
wisely
Overall
All applications for Sabbatical Leave must be submitted to the Chair of Educational
Studies for review. The Chair will use the following criteria to evaluate each
sabbatical proposal:
Exemplary
Satisfactory
Desired results could clearly
Solid foundation for
result within timeframe proposed work could be
established during
sabbatical with other
work following in the
near future
Proposed project fits into onLinks between current
going agendas for teaching,
agendas are mentioned
research/scholarship/ creative
but not explained fully.
endeavor, and/or service. If this If this is a new direction,
is a new direction, the project
benefits to individual and
highlights benefits to the
institution are articulated.
individual and institution for
moving in this direction.
Evidence provided of seeking
Few pieces of evidence
and obtaining past university
were available for use of
resources. Procedures were
past resources, but those
followed in regard to those funds projects that were funded
and create a solid pattern of
demonstrate a wise use of
carrying through on proposals.
resources and the ability
to follow stated
university regulations.
This sabbatical application
This sabbatical
30
Not Satisfactory
Expectations and
timeline are too short
for the articulated
outcomes
How the project will
result in professional
development for the
faculty member is
not clearly
articulated. Benefits
for project are not
established.
Evidence provided
showed that faculty
member has not been
successful in using
university resources
wisely or according
to established
regulations.
This sabbatical
Evaluation
2.
3.
4.
clearly articulates the value of
the project to the individual and
institution and should be
approved.
application is appropriate
for the individual and
institution and should be
approved.
application is not
appropriate and
should not be
approved.
In most cases, no more than two sabbaticals will be granted for the same academic
year.
If the Chair of Educational Studies evaluates more than one application for the same
academic year as satisfactory, the following apply:
a.
Faculty members seeking their first sabbatical will be given first choice for
when to take the sabbatical over a faculty member seeking a second or
subsequent sabbatical.
b.
If both faculty members are seeking their first or subsequent sabbatical, they
will negotiate with each other and the Chair of the department to determine
how the sabbaticals will be allocated.
c.
If two people want to take a sabbatical leave at the same time because of joint
research interests, then all attempts will be made to honor such a request.
If a sabbatical application is not approved, a faculty member can submit an appeal to
the Department of Educational Studies Faculty Affairs Committee for review. The
Faculty Affairs Committee will review all documents and then submit a written
review to the Chair for reconsideration.
31
APPENDIX
A.
Authority and Responsibilities of the Department Chair
B.
Sources for Evidence for Promotion & Tenure
C.
Senate documents for Reappointment Guidelines
D.
Senate documents for documenting Teaching
E.
Senate documents for documenting Research and Creative Endeavor
F.
Senate documents for documenting Service
G.
Sabbatical Guidelines
32