3.0 Faculty

3.0: FACULTY: As in any community, the best interests of the College of Education, Health and Society are served when its faculty represent a diversity of interests and multiple ways of knowing. The Division values, supports, and encourages diversity in each faculty member's contribution to scholarly teaching, research/creative activity, and service. At the same time, the Division values and promotes collegiality among its faculty as well as within the community. 

It is within the context of community, shared goals, scholarly excellence, and diversity that the standards for recruitment, retention, tenure, and promotion are set forth. It is the assumption of EHS that all faculty,tenured, tenure eligible, lecturers, and clinical/professionally licensed (LCPL) will demonstrate a consistent pattern of achievement throughout their careers. 

3.1: Faculty Searches: Once approval to fill a faculty vacancy within a department is received from the Provost and the Dean, University, divisional, and departmental procedures for recruiting and selecting faculty members will be followed. University and divisional procedures will be used in the case of interdepartmental or interdivisional positions. Search procedures for all vacancies will be conducted in strict accordance with the Office of Equity and Equal Opportunity policies, and, whenever possible, should extend beyond the minimum to encourage diversity. 

a. Application materials of all finalists for vacancies will be submitted to the Dean for review. In addition, the Dean may request to see the materials of all applicants. Each finalist will have an interview with the Dean or the Dean's designee. 

b. In the case of Departmental vacancy, the Department's recommendation of a candidate to fill the vacancy will be communicated to the Dean for review. If the Dean does not support the Department's recommendation, written reasons for the denial must be provided to the Department and the Dean will meet with the Department to discuss differing viewpoints. The Dean makes the final decision on all faculty appointments. 

c. In the case of an interdepartmental or interdivisional position, the Chair of the search committee will provide the recommendation to the appropriate Deans. 

3.2: Faculty Responsibilities: Faculty responsibilities to the University are clearly stated in the MUPIM. 

a. Faculty responsibilities to the Division include: 

  • Recognition of and adherence to the divisional standards and procedures described in this document.
  • Appropriate support for special events and cooperative ventures organized by and promoted by the Division.
  • Attendance at meetings of the Division and service on divisional committees. 

b. Faculty responsibilities to the departments are stated in each department's Governance Document.

3.3: Evaluation of Teaching and Advising: 

a. General: The College of Education, Health and Society emphasizes the pivotal role of high-quality teaching and advising in student learning and recognizes that faculty and departments must determine how teaching and advising effectiveness will be measured. 

b. Teaching Effectiveness Plan: Each department is to develop a teaching effectiveness plan. The purpose of the plan is to enhance the quality of instruction for the improvement of student learning. Plans serve two purposes: (1) to provide faculty information for improving teaching effectiveness and (2) to document teaching effectiveness for annual performance reviews and for promotion and/or tenure review. 

c. Teaching Evaluation: To evaluate teaching each department will administer the university/EHS course evaluation form comprising several core questions. Departments may include additional items in the course evaluation form tailored to their particular program needs. In addition, the time period for administering evaluation, third party who can administer evaluation instrument, procedures for processing evaluation and returning feedback to faculty, and how teaching evaluation data will be used (e.g., promotion, tenure, and merit salary increases. 

d. Academic Advising Effectiveness Plan: Each department is to develop an academic advising effectiveness plan. The purpose of the plan is to enhance the quality of advising for the improvement of student learning and development. Plans serve two purposes:
(1) to provide faculty information for improving advising effectiveness and
(2) to document advising effectiveness for annual performance reviews and for promotion and/or tenure review. 

e. Academic Advising Evaluation: To evaluate academic advising each department will administer the EHS academic advising evaluation form (undergraduate and/or graduate versions) consisting of several core items. Departments may include additional items in the advising evaluation form tailored to their particular program needs. In addition, advising effectiveness plans shall specify the time period for administering the evaluations, third parties who can administer the evaluation instruments, procedures for processing evaluations and returning feedback to faculty, and how academic advising evaluation data will be used (e.g., promotion, tenure, and merit salary increases). 

f. Guidelines for a Department’s Teaching and Advising Effectiveness Plan (MUPIM 7.2.C):
1. The teaching and advising evaluation plans are the responsibility of the department in terms of initial development, implementation, and ongoing revision.
2. The department’s plan shall reflect the complexity of the teaching/learning and advising process by including multiple sources of evaluation data, including both quantitative and qualitative assessment methods. The plan shall also address both formative and summative activities. In addition to end-of-semester student evaluations of teaching and annual evaluation of advising, summative and formative activities could include, but are not limited to: ongoing classroom assessment, peer evaluations, student portfolios, chair evaluations, faculty teaching and advising portfolios, classroom materials, samples of exemplary classroom lessons or assignments, samples of independent work with students, senior exit surveys, and alumni surveys.
3. Departmental teaching evaluation plans shall reflect multiple models of teaching and student learning. For example, plans should be sensitive to lecture, discussion, inquiry, or small group instruction.
4. Formative evaluations are designed to aid in the course and teaching development by the instructor and his or her mentors and peers. These evaluations will not be used for summative purposes, such as promotion and tenure decisions or merit salary increase. Rather, formative evaluations are designed to provide valuable feedback for the improvement of course design and the instructor may conduct instruction, and them.
5. Summative evaluations conducted at the end of a term for teaching, and at the end of the year for advising, will be retained and used as a part of the evaluation process for tenure, promotion, post-tenure review, and merit salary increases.
6. Unofficial and unregulated student evaluations (e.g., internet evaluations) may not be used for promotion and tenure purposes or any other personnel consideration.
7. All faculty are required to have all* classes evaluated by students in some formal manner that is appropriate to the specific type of course. All departments are required to provide all undergraduate and graduate students the opportunity to evaluate their academic advisors at least once a year. These evaluations will constitute a concrete record of teaching and advising effectiveness that can be used for both self-improvement and summative evaluation, and shall be constructed in such a manner as to ensure credibility and integrity:

  • The faculty member shall not administer his or her own evaluation. In accord with departmental procedures, a third party shall announce the evaluation, distribute the evaluation forms, and submit the forms for processing.
  • The faculty member shall not receive any evaluation results until final grades for the semester have been submitted.
  • If additional evaluations used exclusive for faculty self-improvement are administered, the above two conditions do not apply. 

*Independent studies and other such courses, as well as classes with enrollments of fewer than five (5), are generally exempt.

3.4: Faculty Annual Evaluation and Salary Procedures: Each department will determine salary recommendations according to internal procedures within that department. Each tenured, probationary and LCPL faculty member will submit a written annual report. 

The department will complete a written annual evaluation for each faculty member and submit a copy of this report to the faculty member for review. The faculty member will make corrections of error or omission. The revised report will be sent to the Dean. Should the Dean or the faculty member wish to change the evaluation, a conference between Dean, Chair, and the faculty member will be held. If the evaluation is changed, the revised report will replace the original report in the faculty member's personnel file. If the faculty member disagrees with the outcome of this conference, the faculty member has the right to add a letter to the personnel file. 

Request for appeals by individual faculty members of their salary increments will be in writing to the Chair and will indicate the basis for the appeal and be supported by additional information/evidence. The Chair will inform the faculty member in writing of the results of this appeal.

Further appeals may be made by the faculty member through internal procedures of the Department and/or University procedures as specified in the MUPIM. Appeals through the department should be exhausted prior to using University procedures. 

3.5: Probationary Faculty: Unless otherwise permitted by these policies, all members of the instructional staff holding an appointment with a tenure eligible rank ordinarily serve a probationary period of six years (MUPIM 7.6A). 

A person may be considered for promotion and tenure only once (except as permitted by MUPIM Section 7.9C), and consideration will occur in the last year of the probationary period (MUPIM 7.6.A). 

At the time of hiring in a tenure eligible position, a person may be accorded, upon agreement of the provost, the dean, the regional campus dean when appropriate, the department chair and the department, credit toward the six-year probationary period (MUPIM 7.6.B).

3.6: Promotion and Tenure for Tenure Track Faculty and Promotion for LCPL Faculty: All candidates for retention, tenure, or promotion will assemble a portfolio that represents their professional accomplishments, educational values, and contributions to the educational enterprise. It is the responsibility of the candidate to follow university guidelines as described in MUPIM 7.3 for tenure track faculty and MUPIM 7.11.F for LCPL faculty and departmental and divisional guidelines. Tenure track candidates are responsible for providing documentation and evidence for all productivity in the areas of teaching and advising, research/creative activity, and service. [For dossier preparation for tenure and/or promotion, see departmental and MUPIM “Guidelines.”

LCPL candidates for promotion are responsible for providing documentation and evidence for all productivity in the areas of teaching and advising, institutional and professional service and professional collegiality. [For dossier preparation see LCPL promotion guidelines.

Individual faculty will submit appropriatetenureand/or promotionmaterials to the departmentaccording to respective department, division, university, and senate guidelines. The department tenure and/or promotion committee undertakes a review of his or her cumulative professional record and conducts a vote on their candidate’s suitability for tenure and/or promotion. A simple majority vote is necessary for a candidate’s positive (or negative) recommendation. The vote of the tenure and promotion committee is conveyed by simply stating that the committee supports/recommends or does not support/not recommend the candidate for tenure and/or promotion (no specific numbers are reported).After receiving the department tenure and/or promotion committee’s recommendation, the department chair or program director (when appropriate) makes a positive or negative recommendation. The candidate’s application is then advanced to the dean.

a. Each member of the EHS Advisory Committee on Promotion and Tenure will review
(1) the respective department's criteria;
(2) the EHS promotion and tenure criteria; and
(3) the criteria stated in the MU policy and information manual for tenured and tenure eligible faculty candidates and the criteria for promotion of LCPL faculty candidates.
The Dean will then convene the Advisory Committee to discuss the individual applications. The Advisory Committee seeks to achieve consensus for a recommendation to the Dean and then submits such recommendations in writing or verbally, at the discretion of the Dean. 

The Dean will use this recommendation in formulating final divisional recommendations. The Dean will notify the Advisory Committee of the recommendations as sent forward to the University Promotion and Tenure Committee for tenured/tenure eligible faculty and to the Provost for LCPL faculty.

b. The Dean will initiate in a timely manner a private conference with each tenure and/or promotion candidate to review the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Promotion and Tenure and the Dean's decision. A summary of the reasons for actions by the Dean's Advisory Committee or the Dean will be given in writing to the candidates if requested. 

Following these conferences, the Dean will inform each Department Chair of the Divisional status of promotion and tenure candidates from that department. 

c. The Dean will submit final Divisional recommendations to the University Promotion and Tenure Committee according to the timeline established by that committee AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH SENATE GUIDELINES 7.4 (TENURE), 7.5 (PROMOTION), 7.9 (RIGHTS OF CANDIDATES…DENIED TENURE AND PROMOTION), AND 8.1 (GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES) IN MUPIM. Similarly the Dean will submit to the Provost the final divisional recommendation for promotion of LCPL faculty according to the timeline established by Senate and posted on the Provost’s website. 

3.7: Faculty Appeals: 

a. Each department within the Division has a grievance procedure incorporated into its Governance Document. Initially, faculty with a grievance pursue the matter pursuant to their departmenta1 procedures. If the grievance is not resolved at the department level a faculty member is encouraged to seek resolution through the divisional procedures designated in this document.

b. Upon receipt of a written request from a faculty member, the Dean will initiate meetings, first, with the faculty member, second with whomever else is involved, and third, with the department chair, at which time the Dean shall review all documents that have been generated during the department procedure. The Dean, having reviewed all relevant documentation and having met with all parties involved, shall render a decision and notify all parties in writing. 

c. If a grievance is not resolved at the divisional level, a faculty member is encouraged to seek resolution through the University procedures designated in the MUPIM 8.1. 

3.8: Quality Instruction: 

a. All faculty members are responsible for adhering to the good teaching practices delineated in the Miami University Policy and Information Manual 5.4. These practices include, among other points, informing students of course content, assignments, examinations, and grading practices; adequate notice of all assignments; establishing fair and impartial performance criteria; returning assignments and examinations in a timely manner; being available during office hours; and treating students with respect. 

b. Grievances related to the MUPIM 5.4 Good Teaching practices. 

1. Grievance by students shall begin at the departmental level. Before the complaint is reduced to writing, the student will meet with the faculty member or chair (when the complaint is against the chair) informally in an attempt to resolve the complaint. This informal meeting will take place at the earliest possible time and not later than fourteen days from the date of the incident or discovery of the incident.
2. If the faculty member’s or the department chair’s (when the grievance is against the department chair) response is not acceptable to the grievant, she or he may file a written statement of the grievance, including the remedy sought, after the informal meeting. This written grievance shall be filed with the department chair (or the dean’s designee when the grievance is against the department chair), who shall respond in writing to the grievance.
3. Upon receipt of a grievance, the chair (or the dean’s designee) will share the grievance with the instructor or advisor and give the instructor or advisor an opportunity to submit a written response to the grievance or explain the circumstances as viewed by that individual. If submitted, the instructor’s or advisor’s written response is also to be placed in the departmental student complaint file.
4. If the department chair’s (or dean’s designee’s) response is not acceptable to the grievant, he or she may file a written appeal to the EHS Academic Appeals Board. This written appeal shall be filed with the Dean’s office and reviewed by the Academic Appeals Board. The Dean or Dean’s designee shall provide written summaries of the committee’s findings to the student, the faculty member, and to the respective Department Chair. The Dean’s office maintains an archive of all appeals documents.
5. The Academic Appeals board is the final level of appeal for student grievances with the College of Education, Health and Society. Students should consult the procedures outlined in the Academic Grievance Policy in the Student Handbook for review of a grievance beyond the divisional level.