This statement forms the basis of the recommendation and is extremely important for the review process. The author should describe the nominee's qualifications and other relevant criteria, focusing on specific details. The aim of this statement is to set out a convincing and detailed case for the nominee's outstanding contributions to postbaccalaureate, graduate, or professional education.

c. Personal statement by the candidate of no more than 1,200 words (using a 12-point font type and one-inch margins)*, addressing the criteria for the award and the impact on student learning.

d. The candidate's curriculum vitae of no more than four pages (using 12-point font and one-inch margins) organized according to the following rubric: Education; Courses Taught at the University of Minnesota; Program and Curricular Development; Service; Outreach and Other Activities Related to Teaching/Learning; Publications (a summary list of the candidate’s most important published works).

e. A list of graduate/professional courses taught at the University of Minnesota over the previous five years of active teaching, along with a numerical overview compiled from student evaluations, arranged according to the form supplied. For courses with both undergraduates and graduate/professional students, please specify the percentage of graduate/professional students enrolled. Up to one additional page of assessment of student learning can be included.

f. Up to ten supporting letters, three of which must be from individual graduate/professional students, past or present. The remaining letters may be from students, faculty, administrators, staff, alumni, or non-University of Minnesota references. In all cases letter writers are encourages to cite specific examples in support of the case.

*EXCESS INFORMATION WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED.

NOTE: Please retain a copy of the dossier at the collegiate or departmental level as dossiers will NOT be returned or retained centrally.

Approved September 28, 2005

Statement on Faculty Salaries

If the University aspires to be among the top three public research universities in the world, the aspiration must include salaries commensurate with that aspiration.

COMMENT:

The Provost asked the Senate Committee on Finance and Planning to identify, in the context of the University's strategic positioning process, an appropriate goal for faculty salaries.

The Committee recognizes that many factors go into making the University competitive, and that one can look at either salaries or total compensation as a measure of financial competitiveness for faculty. In the past, the Committee was told, compensation comparison made the University more competitive than a study of salaries alone, because the University had a benefits package that was superior to that offered at peer institutions. More recently, however, the differences in benefits packages has lessened, and so, therefore, has the comparative advantage the University held.

At present (fall, 2004) the University ranks 5^th among Big Ten public institutions in average salary for faculty at all ranks. Among the top 20 public institutions by academic rank (AAU), it ranks 17^th. The AAU has 59 members, which include the top 30 research universities (public and private); in that group, Minnesota ranks 39^th. The Committee doubts that any small comparative advantage in total compensation can begin to offset the significant differences in salary levels offered at Minnesota and at its aspirational peers.

The Committee intends to return to the Senate with a more detailed statement in the future, but wished to set the stage for its efforts with this simple declaration.

7. COUNCIL OF ACADEMIC PROFESSIONALS AND ADMINISTRATORS
Resolution on Employee Retention During Strategic Positioning
Information for the University Senate

CAPA recognizes the current strategic positioning efforts may result in the jobs of some University of Minnesota employees becoming redundant or eliminated.

CAPA also recognizes that some employees, in anticipation of this, are already seeking other employment opportunities, while others hope to retain their current positions as long as possible.

CAPA believes many of these employees would stay at the University of Minnesota if assured of the opportunity as soon as possible, and CAPA believes it would benefit the University of Minnesota in many ways if these employees remain.

CAPA also believes that current severance policies can cost the University money, and create incentives for professional and administrative (P and A) employees (especially longer term employees) to leave if non-renewed, or if they fear the threat of non-renewal.

Finally, CAPA recognizes that the University of Minnesota is interested in doing all it can to provide an opportunity for all employees who may lose their current job, to find another suitable one here at the University. Such measures include the New Talent Connection.

In view of the above, CAPA recommends the University empower the Office of Human Resources to be proactive in implementing and monitoring extraordinary measures to ensure employees remain at the University. Such measures could include:

CAPA believes these measures will help insure stability at the University during this time of change. This resolution is consistent with policy at other Universities that are members of the Committee on Institutional Cooperation.

Approved October 21, 2005

Professor Jean Bauer, Chair of the Senate Consultative Committee (SCC), introduced Michael Houston, Interim Dean of the Carlson School of Management, and Charles Casey, Chancellor of the University of Minnesota - Crookston.

Professor Jean Bauer, Chair of the Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC), reminded senators that the Academic Unit Governance Policy has been approved.

The FCC has been reviewing the new budget model and the strategic positioning process. A dinner was recently held with the Regents, during which she expressed her feeling of pride during the CIC meeting. The rationale was that while other institutions noted a feeling of frustration with and access to their administration, that sentiment is not present here.

The other issues that the FCC has addressed will be discussed later in the meeting as action items from its committees.

MOTION:

To approve the University Senate and Faculty Senate minutes, which are available on the Web at the following URL. A simple majority is required for approval.

http://www1.umn.edu/usenate/usen/050929sen.html

DISCUSSION:

With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved.

MOTION:

To approve the following resolution.

The University Senate recognizes the current strategic positioning efforts may result in the jobs of some University of Minnesota employees becoming redundant or eliminated.

The University Senate also recognizes that some employees, in anticipation of this, are already seeking other employment opportunities, while others hope to retain their current positions as long as possible.

The University Senate believes many of these employees would stay at the University of Minnesota if assured of the opportunity as soon as possible, and the University Senate believes it would benefit the University of Minnesota in many ways if these employees remain.

The University Senate also believes that current severance policies can cost the University of Minnesota money, and create incentives for professional and administrative (P and A) employees (especially longer term employees) to leave if non-renewed, or if they fear the threat of non-renewal.

Finally, the University Senate recognizes that the University of Minnesota is interested in doing all it can to provide an opportunity for all employees who may lose their current job, to find another suitable one here at the University. Such measures include the New Talent Connection.

In view of the above, the University Senate recommends the University empower the Office of Human Resources to be proactive in implementing and monitoring extraordinary measures to ensure employees remain at the University. Such measures could include:

The University Senate believes these measures will help insure stability at the University during this time of change. This resolution is consistent with policy at other Universities that are members of the Committee on Institutional Cooperation.

DISCUSSION:

Jacqueline Cottingham-Zierdt, Chair of the Council of Academic Professionals and Administrators (CAPA), said that this resolution was approved by CAPA and is now being brought for University Senate approval.

The resolution does not say that employees cannot be eliminated, but states that many individuals are leaving in anticipation of future changes and there is still a need to get work done in the meantime. The resolution also notes the good work that Human Resources has been doing during this transition and encourages the continued effort and creativity of solutions to this problem.

With no further discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved.

Jacqueline Cottingham-Zierdt, Chair of the Council of Academic Professionals and Administrators (CAPA), said that CAPA has asked for changes in the vacation carryover policy so that people do not lose vacation that they have accrued past the maximum of 22 days.

When the question was first asked, the response was that carryover is not allowable since vacation for faculty and academic professionals is not tracked centrally. However, even if the policy was changed to mandate tracking, there was concern that PeopleSoft would not be able to track vacation that only allows accrual of 22 days per year. The vacation rate would need to be two days for month with a total of 24 days.

This issue is now being brought to the Senate for a more inclusive discussion.

A senator noted that PeopleSoft should not dictate University policy.

A senator said that after comparing policies from the other Big Ten institutions, all institutions, except for the University and Michigan State, allow carryover for an additional 12 months.

Q: Tracking via PeopleSoft implies strict central accounting, while the current procedure is for departments to develop their own methods for tracking. Should the month that does not accrue vacation be based on the calendar year or a person’s anniversary date?

A: At this time, a department has discretion to determine which month does not accrue vacation and how it is tracked. There is nothing tracked centrally and some departments are reluctant to monitor usage. PeopleSoft could be programmed to accrue vacation per pay period, based on a rate of 22 days per year divided by 26 pay periods. However, custom programming is hard and makes the system harder to update when new versions are available.

A senator stated that solutions are being proposed to solve a problem that exists. If the problem is flexibility, a policy from the appropriate level in the University would be an adequate solution. A policy of this type would give direction to units to allow employees to retain more than 22 days of vacation during periods when they are not able to take vacation.

Jacqueline Cottingham-Zierdt, Chair of the Council of Academic Professionals and Administrators (CAPA), said that the President addressed this issue in September and CAPA has discussed it with Vice President Carrier.

Currently, retirement waiting periods are determined by salary, which means that the lowest-paid employees are the most affected. At this time, 600 people are in this waiting period. This is also a recruitment issue for many departments.

The Faculty Senate and CAPA each approved separate resolutions last year, so now this issue is being brought to the University Senate so that all groups can discuss and work together on the issue.

President Bruininks noted that this issue is under review at the present time and consultation is taking place with many different groups to find a solution. It is hoped that this will not be an issue within six months. Currently, the retirement funding is being used for other initiatives, but he does understand that recruitment is compromised when the waiting period is present.

A senator noted that the current policy is odd in that waiting depends on a person’s appointment and salary, but the money to put towards a person’s retirement is already part of the salary line when the person is hired.

Q: What is the tax status of retirement benefits? Can a new employee rollover other retirement funds?

A: Retirement funds are paid pre-tax by the employee and the University. Currently, rollovers from previous retirement funds are not permitted, but the University is considering other options.

President Bruininks stated that there has been active participation during the strategic positioning process, with over 300 people serving on the task forces and more than 500 volunteers. Eleven reports will be released on the web as of December 12, with comments through mid-January.

He thanked the Faculty Consultative Committee, the University Senate, and senators for their work in the process, and noted that more discussions will be held in this forum as the process progresses.

He then noted that the capital binding request was submitted a month ago. The goals of it are to provide HEAPR funding and new building construction costs, enhance student life and classrooms, and continue the research mission. Funding from this request will allow other opportunities to be leveraged, such as:

President Bruininks noted that while these plans are not as captivating as the capital request years, these plans will affect everyone. The legislative session starts March 1 and he is looking for student, faculty, and staff support to articulate University needs.

Lastly, with the budget forecast being better than in recent years, the University submitted a request for $22 million in one-time funds: $15 million is to off-set the energy increases this winter, funding for a Dental School virtual reality education center, and clinical and research equipment for the College of Veterinary Medicine.

Draft Policy and Protocol on the Evaluation of Instruction
September 16, 2005

PREAMBLE

The University of Minnesota seeks to achieve instruction of the highest quality so that students learn to their maximum potential. The evaluation of instruction is one way to help ensure excellence in instruction, so the Faculty Senate adopts the following policy and protocol on evaluation of instruction.

There are at least three reasons to evaluate instruction: (1) to improve instruction, (2) to provide information for (a) salary and promotion decisions based on merit and (b) faculty tenure decisions, and (3) to assist students in course selection. This policy and protocol is intended to meet all three objectives. With respect to the second, the purpose of this policy and protocol is to define what shall constitute adequate documentation for student and peer review of faculty and instructional staff teaching contributions.^[3]

The required evaluation of teaching for tenure and promotion decisions must have two major components, peer review and student .evaluation of teaching. Academic units must make provisions for peer review for faculty being considered for tenure, promotion, and salary increases, and for other instructional staff being considered for reappointment, promotion, and salary increases. The peer review information for individuals is to be supplemented by information from student evaluations of all their courses.

Students must be made aware that their ratings will be used in making personnel decisions. A small number of questions, common to all courses throughout the University, will be used in the student evaluations of instruction. The use of common questions provides one means of making judgments on teaching effectiveness University-wide and allows calculation of statistical norms. This type of information can be used with other types to identify very good instructors who deserve rewards as well as instructors who may need assistance in improving their classroom effectiveness. This information does not have the resolution necessary to allow fine discrimination between instructors in intermediate categories. In addition to questions that request a numerical response, survey forms must include provisions for written comments by students.

POLICY

--Every course with a University course number shall be evaluated by the use of student rating forms every time it is offered, except that thesis-only credits, directed or independent study, internships, and classes with fewer than five students shall not be evaluated using such forms. [Note: The Senate Committee on Educational Policy will appoint an ad hoc subcommittee to develop guidelines for departments to evaluate small classes, internships, directed/independent study, and so on. Those guidelines do not have to be in place to adopt this policy.] A department that wishes permanently to exempt a course or courses from use of the standard student evaluation form must receive written approval from the Senate Committee on Educational Policy.^[4]

Data and information from student evaluations shall not be used in isolation from peer evaluation and (for faculty) research and service in evaluating faculty and instructional staff.

The directions for students written on the student rating forms should stress the three purposes of the form: evaluation of instructors, improvement of teaching, and assistance to future students in selecting courses (the "student release" questions). The instructions should be written in a manner that will motivate students to complete the forms. The instructions should explain why demographic data are being collected.

--The student rating forms shall be anonymous.

--Students may not be required to fill in a student rating form for any course. This provision applies to all courses at the University, including multiple-instructor courses that are otherwise covered by a different evaluation protocol.

-- No incentives may be given for filling in a student rating form. Instructors are not to know who filled out a form and who did not.^[5]

--The teaching performance of all instructors, regardless of their academic rank or tenure status, is subject to evaluation. This policy and protocol applies to all instructors regardless of whether they are tenure-track/tenured, term/P&A, or adjunct faculty or hold any other kind of teaching appointment at the University. Specific provisions are noted for tenured and tenure-track faculty.

--Personnel decisions (e.g., merit and salary reviews, promotion, tenure for tenure-track faculty) for all faculty and instructional staff whose salary is based in any part on teaching shall include review by appropriate department, college, and University officers, as set forth in pertinent rules and policies, all numeric data from the teaching evaluation forms from their courses.

--For tenured and tenure-track faculty, faculty peers must evaluate course objectives and syllabi, handouts, assignments and tests, theses and dissertations, and examples of graded student work in order to measure their quality and appropriateness. Faculty and instructional staff must do the same for all other instructors who are not tenured or tenure-track faculty. Peers must also assess the instructor's knowledge of the subject matter, contributions to departmental teaching efforts, and any other teaching contributions, such as development of new courses or innovative instructional materials, authorship of texts or laboratory manuals, or publications on discipline-specific teaching techniques. Peer review could also include assessment of student performance on certification exams (if appropriate to the discipline), survey of the extent of mentoring and participation in other activities related to instruction, or assessment of an instructor's classroom performance via personal visit or videotaping of the class.^[6]

--The information collected pursuant to this policy to evaluate teaching effectiveness for personnel decisions remains confidential.^[7] The results must be shared with the faculty member being reviewed. Access to information on a specific instructor must be restricted to those responsible for decisions on reappointment (where applicable), promotion, tenure (where applicable), and salary adjustments.

--Faculty must always be allowed to respond to student rating results when those results are used for performance evaluation; faculty members must be permitted to add written comments to their files

--All student evaluation data used in personnel decisions must be accompanied by the response rates for the data.^[8]

--Responsibility for implementing the provisions of this policy and protocol rests with the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost, the Senior Vice President for the Health Sciences, deans and department heads, all of whom must clearly convey to faculty the emphasis being placed on teaching in decisions regarding promotion, tenure, and merit-pay increases.

--Department heads and chairs should be evaluated in part on the extent to which they effectively implement this policy and protocol.

PROTOCOL

--Department heads and tenure and promotion review committees will be provided with comprehensive information on the interpretation and use of student rating data (including questions of reliability and validity) in making personnel decisions, and information on practices of peer evaluation of instruction.^[9]

--The student rating form shall contain the following questions, with the verbal anchors as identified:

How would you rate the instructor's overall teaching ability?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very Poor Satisfactory Exceptional

How would you rate the instructor's knowledge of the subject matter?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very Poor Satisfactory Exceptional

How would you rate the instructor's respect and concern for students?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very Poor Satisfactory Exceptional

How much would you say you learned in this course?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Almost Nothing Amount Expected An Exceptional Amount

--All student rating forms shall have spaces for two questions permitting open-ended comments: "Describe things about the course that you found helpful" and "What suggestions do you have for improving the course?"

ALTERNATIVE ONE:
--All written comments on student evaluation forms shall be provided only to the instructor, after data processing by the designated unit on the campus. The evaluation form shall include the following statement: "All written comments will be provided only to the instructor. If you have a comment about the instructor, you should contact _______________."^[10]

ALTERNATIVE TWO:
--The disposition of written comments on student evaluation forms shall be decided by each college or campus.

Faculty and departments are free to add additional open-ended questions to the required form, but such questions will be in addition to rather than replace the required questions.

--Directions given on student evaluation questionnaires will include the following statement:

"Your responses to this questionnaire are important because they will be used in tenure, promotion and salary decisions for your instructor. Your thoughtful written comments are especially requested, and may help your instructor improve future course offerings. The results of this evaluation (including the evaluation forms) will not be returned to the instructor until after the final grades are submitted for this course." [Suggestion has been made to list these points in bullet form.]

--The evaluation form will ask for information on the student's major, gpa and class year, as well as whether or not the course is in the student's major and whether the course is required or elective for the student. There will also be a request, marked optional, for information on the student's age, gender, and race or ethnicity. [Note: Information about the class size and type (lab, lecture, seminar, etc.) will be included, but this information will be compiled elsewhere.]^[11]

--The following question shall be included in the demographic section of the student evaluation form. The data from this question shall be linked to specific building and room numbers and the summary data by room number shall be provided to the chief academic officer and appropriate classroom management office on each campus to help guide decisions on facilities resource allocation.^[12] [It has been suggested the information should be collected, but not in a demographic section.]

How would you rate the physical environment in which you take this class, especially the classroom facilities, including the effect of the environment on your ability to see, hear, concentrate, and participate?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very Poor Satisfactory Exceptional

-- The instructions on the evaluation forms shall state that harassing comments or comments on irrelevant factors are not helpful for evaluation of instruction. Faculty should be provided with guidelines on how to process and interpret open-ended student comments, particularly those that are inappropriate.

-- Administering student evaluations will be the responsibility of each instructional unit. Student evaluations used in promotion and salary decisions will be administered at the beginning of a class period, during the last two weeks of instruction for the term. The instructor may give instructions but must not be present while the forms are being completed and collected. The evaluations will be handed out, completed, and collected without the instructor being present. Once collected, evaluations will be put in a sealed envelope or box. It is suggested that a student be asked to hand out and collect the forms. Each instructional unit shall develop its own practices for ensuring that the completed forms are delivered to the appropriate office. If the forms are delivered to the department office, the department should deliver the envelopes to the data processing center without opening the envelopes. The instructor must never touch or see completed forms until after grades are turned in.

--Each campus will determine the appropriate manner of administering and evaluating student evaluation forms. To facilitate tabulation of the results of standardized questions on the student evaluation forms, each campus administration will provide the instructor and the unit chair/head with a summary of the data; the original questionnaires will be returned to the instructor. This summary will include appropriate statistical characterization of the responses to each question and, where a statistically meaningful data base exists, comparison to the responses for the same question on a campus, college, department, and program basis. To make comparative analysis more meaningful, there will also be comparisons on the basis of class type (e.g., large lecture, small discussion, laboratory, upper or lower division, elective, needed to meet university or major requirements). As resources permit, other types of statistical processing and comparisons may be added at the request of faculty or instructional units.

-- Every instructional unit shall have a policy on peer review of faculty and instructional staff teaching efforts and contributions to teaching, both for purposes of promotion decisions and for teaching-based salary increases. Each unit shall determine what documentation will be used for peer review, and (for faculty) how to evaluate theses and dissertations as well as (for all instructors) samples of graded student work. The documentation is to be used as a basis for evaluating the instructor's knowledge of the subject matter as well as the quality of the instructor's instructional activities. Each unit shall determine who shall have access to the documentation for purposes of peer review, and which materials will be retained for future reference.

The documentation shall reflect what each unit determines to be an appropriately cumulative record of the instructor's contributions to the instructional mission of the University. It is the responsibility of the instructor to update the documentation regularly. It is the responsibility of the unit to retain appropriate portions of this material, including cumulative summaries of student evaluations of the instructor's courses. Each unit shall assume responsibility for maintaining the confidentiality of commentaries or conclusions based on the contents of the documentation.

The documentation for each instructor shall contain an appropriately cumulative listing of courses taught by the instructor, a comprehensive syllabus for each course, and examples of exams, assignments and handouts prepared by the instructor. Units may also wish to include, where appropriate, a listing of undergraduate and graduate students undertaking independent study under the supervision of the instructor, information about student performance on certification exams, and a listing of other activities that pertain to the teaching mission of the unit (e.g. participation in teaching-related committee work or curriculum development, publication of textbooks or study guides, participation in educational development programs, etc.) Documentation may also include a one- to-two page self-assessment of the instructor's teaching strengths and weaknesses. Instructors have the option of adding any other materials they believe are indicative of their contributions to teaching.

--Instructors are encouraged to adopt a mid-semester course evaluation process so that the course can be improved as it is delivered.

--The student evaluation form shall also include the following questions, the responses to which shall, with the consent of the instructor, be made available to students.^[13] The responses to these questions may not be used in any reappointment, promotion, salary, or (for tenure-track faculty) tenure decisions.

[NOTE: The Senate has delegated to the Senate Committee on Educational Policy final authority to approve new questions to be used; they will be inserted here.]

--In addition to the questions required by the preceding sections of this policy, a question bank will be provided for the student evaluation process.^[14] The questions would be supplemental to the required questions, would be selected by the instructor, and would be used primarily for improving teaching. Because the supplemental questions from the question bank are to be used for improving teaching, summary results should go to the instructor only. Use of supplemental questions from the question bank is optional. Provision will be made for instructors, should they choose, to add a reasonable number of custom questions that are not included in the bank.

Departments or schools may also require questions from the question bank or from other sources to be used on all forms used in their area. These additional required questions could be used either for evaluation of instructors or for improving teaching, courses or programs. If for the evaluation of instructors, summary results should go to the department. If for improvement of teaching, courses, or programs, summary results should go to the instructor only if the results are to be used by the instructor, or to curriculum committees if the results are to be used for program improvements. Data from questions that are to be used only for improving teaching should not be released by the University to anyone other than the instructor . Data from questions that are to be used for program improvements may be released to department heads and curriculum committees. [LANGUAGE TO BE INCLUDED AT THE END OF THIS PARAGRAPH IF OPTION ONE IN THE PROTOCOL IS ADOPTED: As with the standard forms, written comments are to be provided only to the instructor. The student evaluation form shall notify students that department heads will not see any written comments. (See footnote 8.)]

--Departments shall develop and make available to instructors a written policy that defines (1) which data from student rating forms will be used for personnel decisions and available to department heads and committees charged with reviewing instructor performance, and (2) which data will be made available to curriculum committees for improving courses and programs. (It is assumed that all information from the four required questions will be used for personnel decisions; the written policy required by this section refers to any additional questions that a unit may require on the evaluation forms.)

--Department and college administrators should be held accountable for timely assessment of the evaluative materials assembled for each faculty member. However, for peer review of the documentation for the purpose of promotion or of teaching-related merit pay increases, the faculty in each unit should be free to decide whether they want their dean or head or chair to take responsibility for assessing the quality of teaching, on the basis of the materials, or whether they prefer that the evaluation be done by an advisory group from within the unit or college.

--Each semester, an appropriate University administrator should send a message to every instructor who is receiving data from a course evaluation with a request to make the release questions available to students.^[15]

When adopted, this policy and protocol replaces all earlier policies, protocols, and questions approved by the University or Faculty Senates.

DISCUSSION:

Professor Richard McCormick, Chair of the Educational Policy Committee (SCEP), said that this policy is an attempt by SCEP and Faculty Affairs Committee (SCFA) to reconcile two policies from the early 1990s. The committees agreed on the majority of the changes, such as retaining four of the five questions minus the physical environment which was moved to a later section and adding verbal anchors to the seven-point scale.

The one difference between the two committees is what to do with written comments. Ideas from both committees have been incorporated into this document and labeled alternatives one and two.

Alternative two is SCEP’s position. The majority of the committee felt that the disposition of written comments should be decided by the college or campus, since it is a way to empower students to voice dissatisfaction with instruction. This opinion is then conveyed to administrators who make decisions about teaching. This is the current stance. A minority opinion believed in alternative one because it would protect faculty from defamatory comments.

Professor Morris Kleiner, Chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee (SCFA), noted that while the committee is supportive of evaluation of instruction and agrees with the majority of the document, there is concern about the disproportionate weight given to written comments during tenure and post-tenure evaluation. If there is a question on a person’s teaching, there are opportunities beyond student evaluations. Individual student comments can be destructive and unreliable when used for purposes other than improving one’s instruction. It was also noted that female faculty members receive comments that contain sexual stereotyping. The information in general contains very little useful information, but there is no way to challenge comments since they are anonymous. Therefore SCFA approved alternative one.

A senator commented that he receives a good sense of the work of the teaching assistants from student evaluations, and therefore, if comments are just released to the instructor, he asked for a provision to be added whereby faculty can see comments of the lab instructors.

Secondly, he says that while he has received very useful feedback from colleagues, he receives very little feedback from students which shapes his teaching, as the comments are not helpful or are abusive. There is only one comment on the entire evaluation that he feels is useful, and he feels that all the questions should be revised. He has looked at the evaluation questions from Duluth, and approves of the specific aspects that are questioned.

Another senator said that they find the question useful. He is confused about the relation between comments and promotion. He did not think this is automatically done.

A senator then noted that the issue about stereotypes seems to be a reason to include written comments. The same student who writes a stereotypical written comment will likely also give the instructor a poor overall evaluation. If the department does not see the written comments, the department will not have a basis for the other marks received.

Another senator said that written comments are difficult to assess and time-consuming to read, which leads to selective use for one evaluation and not for another.

A senator then stated that while he favors evaluation of instruction, this policy was meant to provide data to evaluate the benefits of evaluation and revise the instrument to be more useful. There is more research now, which shows that these are bad questions. The data from the evaluation is meaningless and its use is counter to what is recommended by most current research. This is a good opportunity to revise the entire form and policy, and it should not just be approved and forgotten about.

Another senator said that alternative two works well at Morris, and that the Morris assembly voted 92 percent in favor of this option. The numbers from the rest of the survey are meaningless without the comments. Common themes throughout a course or during a year can be telling for a faculty in a constructive manner. There is also a mechanism at Morris to remove and deal with abusive comments.

A senator stated that he favors alternative two since the department chair can filter what comments are and are not valuable.

The following statement was then read into the record:
As a member of SCEP and of the Durfee Committee on Student Evaluations, I oppose the SCFA proposal to preclude individual student comments from being seen by promotion and tenure committees. Its intent, I assume, is to prevent irrelevant insults and lies from becoming public. If so, it overreacts in the extreme by outlawing all comments from becoming public.

There is no way to differentiate insults from criticisms. It is not possible to say that "Prof. Smith should learn how to teach" is merely an insult, while "Prof. Smith needs to take a course in pedagogical methods" amounts to constructive criticism. The effect of the attempt to silence lies and insults is in fact to silence criticism and skew evaluations toward the positive by insisting that individual complaints have no place on evaluations and should be directed elsewhere.

I am of the opinion that making dissatisfaction known constitutes one proper and desired end of student evaluations and that the very purpose of anonymity is to protect students who want to blow the whistle. The SCFA policy tries to take away the whistle. In fact I know of no other avenues by which students can make their dissatisfactions known while enjoying appropriate protection.

The University needs to keep student comments public because in them the students need not be constrained by the parameters of the specific questions asked. For instance, the University includes no question about whether teachers consistently came to class late or dismissed class frequently; but if they did, that fact should not be concealed from P&T committees.

Students should be permitted to make their views known where they will count: in the deliberations of committees that review faculty. The effect of the SCFA policy is to disempower students, silencing their individual voices and reducing each one to some fraction of a percentage in a histogram. But what about the problem of “cherry picking,” that is, selecting one unrepresentative complaint and building a case on it? This can indeed be a real problem, but the problem lies with those who exercise poor judgment in the process of decision-making, and the problem of poor judgment in faculty and administrators is not to be solved by imposing a gag order on students.

By and large, the individual classroom is a black box into which very little light is admitted, but whatever light there is comes from students. If use of special student release questions can be, and usually is, prevented by unwilling teachers and if student comments on the general form go no further than the teacher, then we have effectively pulled down a screen of complete darkness over professorial misconduct in the classroom. The University has ensured that faculty are not accountable to the very students whom teachers exist to serve.

A senator then noted that not all student comments are negative and student might not pursue the contact option offered in alternative one. A flawed rating system will hurt a faculty member if there are no supporting narratives.

A senator noted that evaluation is done at the tenure-level and a decision about written comments should be made at the same level.

Professor McCormick said that the student release questions are being revised and will be part of the new policy. The final question approval has been delegated to SCEP. Professor Michael Rodriguez and the Student Senate are working on revisions to these questions.

A senator said that these questions are largely summative, with some formative aspects. This means that needs for either type of evaluation are not being properly met. This then means that departments have to create a separate, formative evaluation to get at this information.

A straw vote was then taken among alternative one, alternative two, abstaining, or some other alternative. The majority votes were for alternative two and some other alternative.

MOTION:

To approve the following policy.

Policy on the Use of Personal Electronic Devices in the Classroom

Every instructor at the University of Minnesota has the authority to restrict or prohibit the use of personal electronic devices in his or her classroom, lab, or any other instructional setting. It is expected that faculty will make reasonable accommodations for students with disabilities in working with the Office for Disabilities Services.

COMMENT:

The question of instructor authority concerning the use of personal electronic devices in the classroom arises regularly with the Committee on Educational Policy. We concluded that a simple policy would be the best response.

Approved November 16, 2005

DISCUSSION:

Professor Richard McCormick, Chair of the Educational Policy Committee (SCEP), said that last year this topic was discussed at SCEP and Vice Provost Swan noted that it was his understanding that faculty already have this authority. This year the committee felt that it would be good to pass a simple policy that makes this understanding clear.

Q: Would this policy cover voice recorders and cell phones?

A: Yes.

A senator was then granted permission to read the following two student statements into the record:

Statement 1: Graduate students in the Student Senate support the policy as proposed by SCEP. Many of these students serve as teaching assistants and instructors for undergraduate courses and value the importance of teaching and learning. Creating an environment that supports learning for all students is a vital mission of this University and these students believe that this policy supports this mission.

Statement 2:
The feeling of the majority of the Student Senate, on this policy, seems to be that the policy is not clear regarding the determination of what technologies are appropriate for the classroom and who should be making that determination. Many students feel that this determination should be made by all constituents in the classroom.

Students understand the value of preserving the academic integrity of the classroom during examinations, but they do not feel that the language of this policy speaks directly that that issue or provides an appropriate protection to students educational rights in the classroom.

The Student Senate took action and did not approve the policy with a vote of 6 in favor, 12 opposed, and 5 abstentions.

With no further discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved.

MOTION:

To amend the Faculty Compensation Policy, adopted by the Faculty Senate in 1993-94, as follows (language to be deleted is struck out; language to be added is underlined).

...

PROMOTION INCREASES

Beginning with the 1993-94 salary year, p Promotion from assistant professor to associate professor will be accompanied by an extraordinary recurring $1,500 $2250 increase in base salary and promotion from associate professor to professor will be accompanied by an extraordinary recurring $2,000 $3000 increase in base salary. These figures should be interpreted as minima and are It is intended that these promotional increments will be in addition to the annual salary increase award related to given for meritorious performance. The minima will be adjusted annually to reflect inflation using the Higher Education Price Index.^[16] It will be the responsibility of the Provost to identify the amounts each year and to communicate those amounts to the deans (or equivalent unit heads). The deans will set aside funding for promotional increases separate from funding normally set aside for merit and retention purposes. Deans may institute higher minima but are required to use consistent and equitable procedures when granting these increases. , from those funds provided to his/her unit for salary increase distribution, sufficient funds to cover these promotional increments. It is understood that the dean may also set aside funds from this overall pool to address special merit or retention purposes. It is intended that this promotion increment will receive inflation-related increases in future years.

...

COMMENT:

The Provost asked the Senate Committee on Finance and Planning to review the policy on promotional increases awarded to faculty. The Committee recommends to the Faculty Senate that the changes to the policy be approved.

The amounts were increased by the HEPI (Higher Education Price Index) from 1993-94 to 2005-06. The Committee was informed that HEPI is a better measure than the CPI because HEPI is geared largely to college and university costs, in particular salaries.

The Committee also recommends that the funding for promotion increases not come from the general salary increase pool. Especially for smaller colleges or campuses, but for all colleges and campuses in general, if a larger-than-usual number of faculty are promoted in one year, and if the promotion increases must come from the general salary increase pool, there could be little left over for those faculty who are not being promoted that year. The Committee thus recommends the policy require the deans and chancellors to fund promotion increases form other sources.

Finally, the Committee recommends, in the amendments, that the Provost be responsible for adjusting the promotion increase amounts each year, by the increase in the HEPI, and that he or she notify the deans of the promotion amounts to be awarded that year.

DISCUSSION:

With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m.

^{[1] Where advising is the exclusive or primary contribution, a candidate should be nominated instead, or perhaps in addition, for the John Tate Award for Undergraduate Academic Advising; "Two awards will be given to those whose primary responsibilities include advising, and two awards will be given to those for whom advising is not a primary responsibility, but who meet the criteria for excellence in advising."
[2]} All colleges (small as well as large) are encouraged to have nominating committees.

^[1] The dossiers from the 2004-2005 award recipients may be reviewed at the following libraries:
Twin Cities: Walter Library, Circulation/Reserve Desk (Perry Dean)
UMD: UMD Library, Reserve Desk (Bill Sozansky)
UMC: UMC Library (Owen Williams)
UMM: Rodney Briggs Library, Reserve Section (Shaheen Haji)

^[1] All colleges (small as well as large) are encouraged to have nominating committees.
^[2] The dossiers from the 2004-2005 award recipients may be reviewed at the following libraries:
Twin Cities: Walter Library, Circulation/Reserve Desk (Perry Dean)
UMD: UMD Library, Reserve Desk (Bill Sozansky)
UMC: UMC Library (Owen Williams)
UMM: Rodney Briggs Library, Reserve Section (Shaheen Haji)

^[3] In this policy and protocol, the term "instructor" includes all who deliver instruction regardless of academic rank, appointment status, and so on. At some points in the policy, there will be a distinction between (1) tenured and tenure-track faculty, and (2) all others who deliver instruction; in the latter case, the language will refer to faculty and instructional staff.
^[4] This policy and protocol shall apply to student evaluation of courses having no more than two instructors. Units whose curricula feature courses with more than two instructors shall develop their own procedures for student evaluation of such courses and shall be reported to the dean of the college or other appropriate campus academic officer. These procedures for multi-instructor course evaluations shall be made available to all instructors in the unit.
^[5] For extra credit (such as points) to be awarded for filling out the form, the instructor must know who did and did not fill out the forms. It is not permissible for the instructor to have this information.

^[6] It is to a faculty member's benefit to prepare and regularly update a teaching portfolio that contains materials that will be considered during his/her evaluation. This policy is not meant to exclude continued use of other mechanisms for peer review that may already be in place in academic units, such as classroom visitation.

^[7] As required by Minnesota state law at the time this policy is adopted.
^[8] The Senate Committee on Educational Policy is concerned about the very low response rates when students are asked to fill out evaluation forms on the web, outside of class.
^[9] Responsibility for providing this information rests with the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost, the chancellors, and the deans. Training for new department heads/chairs and for deans should include this information as well.
^[10] Students will thus understand that if they write comments that insult the instructor, the department will not see the comments. There are ways other than anonymous comments on forms that students can make their dissatisfaction known to the department or college

^[11] Age/gender/ethnicity information shall be requested because the information obtained can be useful to instructors in demonstrating how different groups respond to his/her teaching; problems with different race/gender/age groups can be identified and addressed. Other personal information--class year, GPA, major, and whether the class was elective or required—will be requested (not marked optional) because these factors have been shown in prior research to have an effect on student evaluations.

^[12] Variants of this question should be developed for classes that use multiple rooms, for field study class, for on-line classes, and for other classes that differ from the lecture-in-one-room format.
^[13] On the web, for instance.
^[14] The University administration will provide the question bank on a website.

^[15] Reminders each semester coupled with a very easy method to grant permission should increase the number of instructors who choose to release their data. The course release information should be cataloged by course along with instructor and should have a link at the entry for the course in the on-line Course Guide. This will make it easier for students to find information about a course

^[16] The Senate assumes the Provost's office will, after calculating the increases, round the results to the nearest $50 or $100. The Senate does not presume that any particular ratio between the two promotion increments will be maintained.