MEMO
Office of the Provost

To: Faculty
From: Academic Cabinet
Date: April 12, 2007
Subject: Promotion policy concerns

As you are aware, several years ago a faculty committee drafted a new promotion policy that was subsequently accepted by the faculty and approved by the Board of Trustees. We now have had several years of experience with this policy. As with any change, the revised criteria have solved some problems while creating others. As the deans have worked with the policy and sat with Faculty Status Committee in implementing it, we have made some observations that we have shared with the Faculty Senate in the form of recommendations. While the Senate did not take any official actions in response to these recommendations, Senate has encouraged us to continue to work in the direction we outlined and provided feedback for consideration. Much of this feedback has been incorporated into the materials we are prepared to share with the faculty as a whole. We bring the recommendations below to the faculty for discussion at the April 16 Faculty Assembly.

Here is the updated timeline we are recommending for consideration of changes in the current policy. The April 16 meeting is a time for achieving clarity about the proposed changes and discussing their merit. Additional discussion time can likely be made available during the university forum meeting on May 3 if desired. During the summer efforts can be made to further test the criteria on faculty portfolios. We would then hope to approve the changes in September for faculty to use in preparing promotion applications in the fall.

In preparation for the April 16 meeting we encourage you to read this memo carefully. In addition, we have attached the proposed revision of the criteria. A chart that compares the current and proposed criteria, with rationale, is available on the provost’s homepage for those who wish to see more detail at this point. Also you may wish to review the current criteria in Section 3 of the Faculty/Staff Handbook, which is available on the HR homepage. A copy of each of the latter documents will be available on each table at our meeting.

Before describing the proposed changes, it will be helpful to consider the purposes of the changes that were made several years ago. The changes were designed to increase objectivity and transparency and lodge more responsibility with individual faculty and the department. Another change evident in the revision was that each criterion was treated as if it were dichotomous, i.e. either present or not present, rather than as existing on a continuum.

Here then are our observations and recommendations.

1. Faculty Status Committee members and Academic Cabinet have experienced frustration with the criteria being treated as if they are dichotomous since most criteria actually exist on continua. The structure of the teaching and service criteria are somewhat helpful in this regard because they show at least some progression from basic criteria expected from everyone in the “Competent” category to less common expectations for the “Outstanding” category. The scholarship criteria, however, show no progression at all. Rather, faculty are judged to be “Competent,” “Very Good” or “Outstanding” based on whether they demonstrate quality of scholarship in one area, two areas or three areas (with the three areas being publications, presentations and professional service and development). The truth is that faculty work at all three areas, not one or two, and would benefit if we could look at them together. Therefore, we recommend:

That we reconstitute the scholarship criteria much like the service criteria to show a progression of expectations of all faculty, e.g. membership in professional organizations to criteria that would be truly outstanding, e.g. as a national or international reputation
That we revise the teaching criteria for “Very Good” and “Outstanding” to show a true progression from “Competent” to “Outstanding.” (Currently, faculty are “Very Good” if they meet 3 criteria from a list of 7 criteria and “Outstanding” if they meet 5 criteria from the same list of 7 criteria.)

2. We also have struggled with the possibility that we are experiencing ‘grade inflation.’ This becomes particularly likely in a culture that tends to be affirming and has difficulty denying individuals’ requests. What do we believe about the faculty distribution of “Competent,” “Very Good” and “Outstanding” in teaching, scholarship and service? Is it likely that more than half of the faculty will be “Outstanding,” or will the majority be “Competent?” What does it say if many faculty were to request a designation of “Outstanding” in all three areas? Should “Outstanding” be reserved for a very high level of performance that only a few reach? Only a couple faculty have ever achieved Level 9, and only six faculty currently are at Level 8. Accordingly, we recommend:

That we reserve “Outstanding” for truly exceptional performance
That while we encourage faculty to reach their highest potential, we view attainment of Levels 8 and 9 as reserved for exceptional achievement

3. Both points 1 and 2 above suggest that we consider a 4-point scale to replace the current 3-point scale and that we adjust the points required to achieve the various levels. I believe we can show mathematically that the 22 points required to reach Level 9 (see below) on a 4-point scale is essentially the same as 16 points on a 3-point scale. The current scoring is as follows: 3*teaching + 2*scholarship +1*service where Competent =1 point, Very Good =2 points and Outstanding =3 points.

Therefore, we recommend:

That we adopt a 4-point scale with scoring as follows:

3*teaching + 2*scholarship +1*service
where Competent =1 point, Good =2 points, Very Good =3 points and Outstanding=4 points
That the points required for each level be adjusted as follows:

Instructor
Level 0 6 points (currently 3 points)
Level 1 8 points (currently 4 points)

Assistant Professor
Level 2 10 points (currently 6 points)
Level 3 12 points (currently 7 points)

Associate Professor
Level 4 14 points (currently 8 points)
Level 5 16 points (currently 10 points)

Professor
Level 7 18 points (currently 12 points)
Level 8 20 points (currently 14 points)
Level 9 22 points (currently 16 points)

For the mathematically inclined, attached is a chart showing the various point combinations for the three areas of teaching, scholarship and servicein order to achieve the different ranks and levels.

4. We think there is value in a system of promotion that has faculty moving through each level in a systematic way so that they experience the rewards of promotion on a regular basis. The current system intentionally did not disallow skipping levels. Skipping levels leads to large salary jumps and makes budget management difficult, and in fact limits what can be done for all salaries. EMU is committed to reaching the CCCU median for faculty salaries over the next couple years, but we want to distribute the increases over all faculty, not just a few. Note also that the current requirements related to years of service provide for two year intervals between levels. Therefore, we recommend:

That we do not permit skipping levels on the scale
That applications for promotion be accepted no more frequently than at two year intervals

5. We also think there is reason to connect promotion to full professor and granting of a long-term (five-year) contract. We believe promotion to full professor and granting of a long-term contract signify similar messages from the institution; therefore we do not think it makes sense to promote a person to full professor before the institution decides that a long-term relationship is desired, that is, until the first six years of conditional service result in a five-year contract. Further, typically university faculty are expected to serve for at least six years at that institution before being promoted to full professor. An exception to the usual requirements could be made in the unusual situation of hiring a person who is experienced, generally outstanding and well known by the administration. Therefore, we recommend:

That six years of service at EMU and a long-term contract be necessary but not sufficient conditions for promotion to full professor

6. We are aware that faculty may find it difficult to know what data may represent evidence for the criteria or what documentation might be provided. Some current criteria do suggest means by which the criterion might be manifested, but this practice is not consistent throughout the criteria. Therefore, we recommend:

That possible sources of data be suggested with each criterion and that current criteria be revised as needed to separate the criteria per se from statements about kinds of data

Not surprisingly, review of the criteria has suggested a few other minor changes to improve clarity or categorization. These minor changes are shown on the chart comparing current and proposed criteria referred to earlier.

The promotion policy is the prerogative of the Board of Trustees. However, it is our desire that the policy be designed and owned by the faculty as a reflection of our beliefs. The policy should reflect our beliefs about how to make EMU a fair and excellent institution and should reflect our values, for instance our emphasis on teaching. Academic Cabinet encourages the faculty to consider the above issues not only from the standpoint of self-interest, but also from the vantage point of how to create a system that will produce excellence in the faculty and the institution. As we try to discern the merit of the proposed revisions, we encourage you to consider where you might fall in rank and level with the proposed revisions compared to the current system. Academic Cabinet welcomes discussion of these issues related to the promotion criteria, as well as your suggestions for improvement.

Attachments: Proposed Promotion Criteria

CC: Loren Swartzendruber, president