The UNC Policy Manual
400.3.1.1[G]
Adopted
I. Introduction. At the November 1992
meeting of the Board of Governors, questions were raised about the procedures
and criteria for the awarding of tenure and about the evaluation, recognition,
and reward of teaching, particularly in tenure decisions. The chairman of the board referred the
questions and concerns to two standing committees, the Committee on Personnel
and Tenure and the Committee on Educational Planning, Policies, and
Programs. The report entitled, Tenure and Teaching in the University of
North Carolina, adopted by the board on September 10, 1993, distilled what
was learned by the committees and recommended additional steps to encourage
good teaching within the university and to see that the quality of teaching
continues to be a prime consideration in tenure decisions.
In
its report, the board reaffirmed the concept of tenure. The central question that led to the review
was whether sufficient consideration is given to the quality of teaching when
tenure decisions are made. The board
recognized that the relative importance given to the three major functions of
teaching, research, and public service varies at specific institutions
depending upon their respective missions. Nevertheless, the report confirms
that, regardless of classification, "each institution should view teaching
as a core requirement. The board states
in its long-range plan that teaching or instruction is the primary
responsibility of each of the UNC institutions.
Thus while neither teaching nor service nor research is the sole measure
of a faculty member's competence and contribution at any UNC institution,
teaching should be the first consideration at all of the UNC
institutions."
II. Recommendations. This policy lists
the recommendations adopted by the Board of Governors and provides instructions
to be followed by the constituent institution in complying with them.
1. That the Board of Governors, through the president
of the University, instruct the chancellors of each constituent institution to
do the following:
a. Review
institutional mission statements, tenure policies, and the criteria for making
faculty personnel decisions and, where necessary, to revise them so as to give
explicit recognition to the primary importance of teaching in the University.
b. Revise
institutional policies and procedures, as necessary, to require (1) that clear
and specific statements of criteria for evaluation of faculty performance at
every level (institution, college/school, department) are provided in writing
and discussed with each probationary faculty member before initial employment
and at the beginning of the first term of employment and with each candidate
being reviewed for reappointment or tenure at the beginning of the year in
which the review is scheduled to be made, and (2) that a record of these
discussions be kept in the individual's personnel file;
c. Review
procedures for the evaluation of faculty performance to ensure (1) that student
evaluations and formal methods of peer review are included in teaching
evaluation procedures, (2) that student evaluations are conducted at regular
intervals (at least one semester each year) and on an ongoing basis, (3) that
peer review of faculty includes direct observation of the classroom teaching of
new and non-tenured faculty and of graduate teaching assistants, and (4) that
appropriate and timely feedback from evaluations of performance is provided to
those persons being reviewed.
Any proposed revision to institutional
mission statements necessitated by the review referenced in Recommendation 1.a.
should be submitted to the president by January 21, 1994, so that they can be
acted upon prior to adoption of the revised long-range plan. A full report on actions taken in response to
Recommendation 1 with respect to criteria for faculty personnel decisions and
policies and procedures for evaluation of faculty teaching performance at both
the undergraduate and graduate levels should be sent to General Administration
by April 4, 1994. Proposed changes to
tenure policies and regulations, which require the approval of the president
and the board, should be separately identified in the report.
2. That
the President of the University be asked to report on these reviews to the
Board of Governors by July 1, 1994.
3. That
the Board of Governors, through the President of the University, call upon the
chancellors of institutions which do not now have awards for outstanding teaching
to establish such awards either campus-wide or at the college/school level.
Institutions that do not now have
awards for outstanding teaching should submit a report on the actions taken in
response to Recommendation 3 by April 4, 1994.
4. That
the Board of Governors create annual system-wide teaching awards with monetary
stipends which are designated "Board of Governors' Awards for Excellence
in Teaching." (The Chairman of the Board of Governors should name an ad
hoc committee to work out the details and present recommendations
concerning implementation of this proposal.)
Chairman Poole has appointed an ad hoc committee to work out the details
to implement the awards. Institutions are invited to submit recommendations or
suggestions by December 1, 1993, for the consideration of this committee.
5. That
the Board of Governors seek appropriations for each campus in biennial budget
requests to establish or to strengthen centers and activities designed to
encourage and support teaching excellence and to improve teaching effectiveness
throughout the University.
The report recognized the special
efforts of many institutions to emphasize professional development activities
intended to have a direct and positive impact on teaching. But it also acknowledged that greater efforts
need to be made in this regard at a number of campuses, especially those with
limited resources available for such initiatives. Despite financial strains, it declared that
"each institution should allocate a portion of its budget for faculty
development and target a specific part of that for the development of teachers
and teaching." It is the board's
clear expectation that an institution which does not have a special center for
teaching and learning should plan to create such a center as soon as
possible. The report also urged
institutions to provide tangible incentives and encouragement for tenured and
non-tenured faculty and graduate teaching assistants to take advantage of these
professional development opportunities.
In addition, Recommendation 5 commits the board to seek appropriations
in biennial budget requests to give greater support to centers and activities
designed to encourage and support teaching excellence.
6. That
greater efforts be made to develop and strengthen the teaching skills of
graduate students, and that the Board of Governors ask the President to
prepare, in consultation with the University-wide Graduate Council, a report
with specific guidelines and
recommendations for the training, monitoring, and evaluation of graduate
students who teach courses in UNC institutions.
A committee from the University-wide
Graduate Council is addressing this recommendation and should report to General
Administration by February 1, 1994.
Thereafter, the council's proposals will be shared with constituent
institutions for their reactions and comments.
[This is a
rewrite of Administrative Memorandum #338.]