Professional Development and Evaluation Procedures — 2006-2007

(Available for download as PDF)

Prologue

The professional development and evaluation of faculty is vital to maintaining a quality university. Continuing improvement in teaching, service to students, scholarship, and service to the university and community is the hallmark of professional development at a university and should be a primary goal of every faculty member. Faculty and administrators both have a significant interest in supporting the professional development of every faculty member. Faculty members within a department have a critical stake in the professional development of their departmental colleagues and are best suited to aid in and evaluate that development.

In developing these procedures, the committee took into account Articles 20, 22, and 25 of the MnSCU/IFO Master Agreement and incorporated them into a single set of procedures. The goals of the committee in preparing these procedures are to develop a system that

1. provides a clearer structure for departmental mentoring of colleagues,
2. is effective in evaluating professional development,
3. is more efficient for faculty, departments, and administrators, and
4. reduces the workload and paperwork for faculty, administrators, and staff.

The process focuses on the continued professional development and mentoring of faculty by the department and the Dean/supervisor through all phases of one's career. The process for all faculty members, probationary, fixed-term, nontenure track, and tenured alike, revolves around the development of a Professional Development Plan (PDP) and a Professional Development Report (PDR) on one's accomplishments. The PDP and PDR will be reviewed and evaluated by the department and department Chairperson. The Dean or immediate supervisor will review the PDP and evaluate the faculty member based on the PDR. The Provost and President will review the dean's assessment of probationary faculty annually. The Professional Development and Evaluation process is intended to mentor the faculty member in their professional development and provide a mechanism to evaluate achievements in order to make personnel recommendations and decisions.

On September 14th, 2004, the SCSU Meet and Confer ad hoc Article 22 Committee prepared the following resolution concerning the Professional Development and Evaluation procedures at SCSU. This statement was approved by the Faculty Senate and accepted by the SCSU administration on September 14, 2004.

We agree that Article 22 is problematic for both faculty and administration. Therefore, we believe there is a need to establish clear and unambiguous professional development procedures. It is our recommendation that the local FA and the local Administration begin discussion on a plan of modification that would result in a Letter of Understanding (LOU) changing Article 22 of the IFO MnSCU Master Agreement. In the meantime, the SCSU Meet and Confer ad hoc Article 22 Committee, representing the Faculty Association and the Administration, agrees that:

1. The department should provide written comments on both the PDP and PDR.
2. The department may form a committee to respond to the PDP and the PDR.
3. The Deans at SCSU have incorporated requests for comments on both PDP and PDR in the published process.
4. Any written comments given to the Dean or the Department chair must be given to the faculty member for response.

These comments must be related to the goals of the department, the college and the University; must be limited to the five criteria; and must be signed and dated. All these comments plus responses from the faculty member will be placed in the faculty member's official personnel file.

• Probationary Faculty
• Definition of Steps in Faculty Development and Evaluation Process
• Fixed Term Faculty
• Non-Tenure Track Faculty
• Tenured Faculty