Post Tenure Review

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ My Message Board ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by John Sarraille on May 01, 2001 at 02:44:25:

I'd be interested in knowing what the rest of you think of the provisions in the contract for Post Tenure Review (cf MOU 15.29-31; 15.18-20). We may be getting into a showdown on my campus over what the exact policy will be.

My feeling is that CFA should be negotiating to "Eliminate Post Tenure Review" at the same time that it negotiates to "Eliminate FMI." If you look at FMI and PTR, you may see parallels.

One of the current CSU sunshine proposals is to put *all the assignments of the faculty unit employee* in the set of criteria under which the tenured faculty unit employee can be reviewed. (Currently the only thing expressly required is teaching evaluations for faculty who teach.)

On my campus, the administration is also pushing to add to the policy a provision for Deans to create an independent report on any and all criteria. By contract provision, these reports become part of the tenured faculty unit employee's Personnel Action File.

It seems to me that such practices can easily turn into a tool to help the administration weaken tenure further and disempower tenured faculty further. I don't see any good coming from top-down, administrative post tenure review.

PTR is really very much like the FMI process that so many of us loathe. It also can be seen to fit into a larger pattern that includes the recent hiring practices of the CSU that have resulted in the reduction of the ratio of tenure-track faculty to students.

I suppose that on most campuses there currently are no actions specifically linked to the outcome of the post tenure review -- no teeth yet -- no diminishment of raises or such. For this reason, post tenure review may seem innocuous. But on the other hand who knows what problems material placed in our (permanent) Personnel Action Files may cause for us in the future? Isn't the content of those files the legal basis for administration actions that affect our job status? Do we really want to accept managers -- biased operatives of the "imperial administration" -- loading up our PAF's with "information" they "develop" on us concerning curricular, pedagogical, academic, and departmental matters?

It seems to me that only a bottom-up, peer-based form of post tenure review should be acceptable.

I think that CFA needs either to work to remove all provision in the contract for Post Tenure Review, or to get a complete rewrite in the contract that gives faculty unit employees the right to a truly peer-based
review process.

I'd be really interested to know what you all think of this. Is this important to you?

I also would like to know if there's any hope that this could be something we could negotiate for in this round.

Homepage

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: I'd be interested in knowing what the rest of you think of the provisions in the contract for Post Tenure Review (cf MOU 15.29-31; 15.18-20). We may be getting into a showdown on my campus over what the exact policy will be. : My feeling is that CFA should be negotiating to "Eliminate Post Tenure Review" at the same time that it negotiates to "Eliminate FMI." If you look at FMI and PTR, you may see parallels. : One of the current CSU sunshine proposals is to put *all the assignments of the faculty unit employee* in the set of criteria under which the tenured faculty unit employee can be reviewed. (Currently the only thing expressly required is teaching evaluations for faculty who teach.) : On my campus, the administration is also pushing to add to the policy a provision for Deans to create an independent report on any and all criteria. By contract provision, these reports become part of the tenured faculty unit employee's Personnel Action File. : It seems to me that such practices can easily turn into a tool to help the administration weaken tenure further and disempower tenured faculty further. I don't see any good coming from top-down, administrative post tenure review. : PTR is really very much like the FMI process that so many of us loathe. It also can be seen to fit into a larger pattern that includes the recent hiring practices of the CSU that have resulted in the reduction of the ratio of tenure-track faculty to students. : I suppose that on most campuses there currently are no actions specifically linked to the outcome of the post tenure review -- no teeth yet -- no diminishment of raises or such. For this reason, post tenure review may seem innocuous. But on the other hand who knows what problems material placed in our (permanent) Personnel Action Files may cause for us in the future? Isn't the content of those files the legal basis for administration actions that affect our job status? Do we really want to accept managers -- biased operatives of the "imperial administration" -- loading up our PAF's with "information" they "develop" on us concerning curricular, pedagogical, academic, and departmental matters? : It seems to me that only a bottom-up, peer-based form of post tenure review should be acceptable. : I think that CFA needs either to work to remove all provision in the contract for Post Tenure Review, or to get a complete rewrite in the contract that gives faculty unit employees the right to a truly peer-based : review process. : I'd be really interested to know what you all think of this. Is this important to you? : I also would like to know if there's any hope that this could be something we could negotiate for in this round.

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ My Message Board ] [ FAQ ]