1 / 10

Personnel Issues and the Department Team

This document provides a comprehensive overview of personnel management in department teams, including the structure, guidelines, and evaluation criteria. It aims to make the requirements as quantitative as possible, ensuring fair assessment of teaching, scholarly and creative activities, and service within the department.

laurawhite
Download Presentation

Personnel Issues and the Department Team

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Personnel Issues and the Department Team

  2. Personnel Management structure

  3. “Nothing could possibly be as boring… …as reading another Department’s Personnel Document.” -Dallas Rhodes, 2005

  4. The CSUF Context Each Department commanded to create own personnel document governed by very general University policy approved by University Personnel Committee Personnel actions are based solely on materials included by candidate in their portfolio no external letters/comments allowed Geology faculty unanimous in the desire to make requirements as quantitative as possible

  5. General Framework of “Shorty” Categories of geology-specific evaluation criteria are specified for Teaching, Scholarly and Creative Activities, and Service A. Teaching A.1 Student Responses to Instruction A.2 Classroom Peer-Reviews A.3 Student Research (undergraduate required; graduate encouraged) A.4 Expectations regarding student achievement A.5 Pedagogical approach and method A.6 On-going professional development as a teacher A.7 On-going professional development in the discipline Examples of each type of activity, and appropriate types of evidence, are listed for each category e.g. for category A.5 innovative teaching techniques original curricular development

  6. Standards of Performance Specific, typically quantitative, standards of performance in Teaching and SCA are listed for each review period e.g. years 2, 4, 6, and promotion to Full Professor possible rankings are Excellent, Sufficient and Insufficient A. e.g. Teaching--Year 4 Excellent – Minimum requirements are: SRI score (average of class averages) exceeding 3.50; (2) classroom peer reviews must average excellent for all categories for the period; (3) supervisor for one completed student thesis proposal; (4) excellent rating in A.4; (5) one contribution from two different categories among A.5 – 7. Sufficient – Minimum requirements are: SRI score of 3.20 (average of class averages); (2) classroom peer reviews must average sufficient for all categories; (3) supervisor for one completed student thesis proposal; (4) sufficient rating in A.4; (5) one contribution from among A.5 – 7 during the period (fourth year). Insufficient – Failure to meet the criteria for Sufficient shall be deemed Insufficient.

  7. Shorty’s second-year evaluation

  8. Who would you vote for?

More Related