The school shall have well-defined policies and procedures to recruit, appoint and promote
qualified faculty, to evaluate competence and performance of faculty, and to support the
professional development and advancement of faculty.
4.2.A. A faculty handbook or other written document that outlines faculty rules and regulations.
The rules and regulations governing faculty are documented in the University of Washington Policy Directory, available online at: http://www.washington.edu/admin/rules/policies/. The portions of the Faculty Code from the UW Policy Directory that include specific information on rules and regulations for faculty appointment, promotion, and tenure may be found online at:
http://www.washington.edu/admin/rules/policies/FCG/FCCH24.html.
In addition, the SPH Academic Affairs Handbook provides detailed, school-specific information on appointment, promotion, and tenure, and is found in Appendix 1.5.B. The Academic Affairs Handbook is also available on the SPH website at: http://sph.washington.edu/gateway/handbook/.
4.2.B. Description of provisions for faculty development, including identification of support for faculty categories other than regular full-time appointments.
Faculty development is recognized as a vital role of the SPH leadership and senior faculty. Numerous policies and efforts are devoted to enhancing the effectiveness, productivity, and satisfaction of the faculty. Opportunities for faculty development include:
SPH faculty orientation: In addition to the orientation advice that the UW offers for new faculty, the SPH holds a half-day Faculty Orientation, during which faculty are introduced to the research,
instructional, library, and computer resources of the SPH and University. In addition, the associate dean for Research and Programs, the associate dean for Academic Affairs, and the chair of the Faculty Council address the new faculty on the “faculty life cycle,” covering issues including research, service, teaching expectations, promotion and tenure procedures and policies, and other concerns, such as the grant development process, human subjects procedures, and academic and student ethics.
Annual reviews: All departments hold formal annual reviews of junior faculty, during which senior faculty collectively review the record of each assistant or associate professor and lecturers. These deliberations, which in some departments extend over two days, provide a forum for thoughtful and constructive evaluation of the teaching, research, and service records of each faculty member. The outcomes of these reviews provide specific suggestions for improvement and/or additional opportunities for the individual faculty member; they are also likely to include recommendations to other faculty who could assist the individual through collaboration or additional mentoring. Based on these reviews, the chair of each department meets individually with each faculty member to review past performance and future plans. A formal letter from the chair to the faculty member is written after each of these meetings summarizing the discussion.
Mentoring: Departments assign senior faculty members to advise and guide junior faculty members. In some departments, the chair assumes this role. In addition to direct mentoring, the chair formally meets with junior faculty following the annual reviews to convey recommendations on improving, prioritizing, or redirecting their research, teaching, and service activities. The Department of Health Services has created a Professional Development Group to provide mentorship and encouragement on a group level for assistant professors.
The UW Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) (http://www.washington.edu/teaching/) This is a university-wide instructional resource for faculty and teaching assistants, and it promotes excellence in teaching and learning at the University of Washington through its work with individual faculty and TAs,
departments, campus-wide initiatives, and University leaders. CTL staff collaborate on the design, implementation, and assessment of ways to advance learning for all students in the diverse UW community.
The Center for Curriculum Transformation (http://depts.washington.edu/ctcenter) promotes and supports curriculum development aimed at teaching and learning to critically think about cultural diversity.
The Faculty Fellows Program is offered annually by the University’s administration to work with new faculty on topics such as:
• Techniques for engaging students in lectures • Using technology in the classroom
• Teaching evaluation and assessment
• Finding a balance between teaching and research.
The UW Health Sciences Research Funding Service and the UW Grants and Funding Information Service provide extensive web-based and consultative resources to SPH faculty.
Paid professional leave (sabbatical): This may be granted to tenured faculty after seven years of service to increase their scholarship and professional development. Sabbatical leave may be granted for one, two, three, or four quarters.
Other faculty resources:
• Departments may use their resources to fund faculty to attend conferences and professional meetings.
• A tuition exemption policy allows faculty to register for up to six credits per quarter for a minimal charge.
4.2.C. Description of formal procedures for evaluating faculty competence and performance.
In addition to student evaluation of classroom teaching, described in Criterion 4.2.D below, all faculty undergo periodic peer review of their teaching. The departments have varying procedures for peer review, but it generally involves review of the syllabus and instructional materials, observation in the classroom, and preparation of a written instructor evaluation. For lectures and assistant professors, approximately one course each year must be reviewed by their peers. These evaluations are reviewed by each department’s curriculum committee and by senior faculty at the time of faculty reviews. They are a mandatory
component of promotion and tenure packets. Recommendations based on these reviews are transmitted to the faculty member to assist in improving teaching effectiveness. The SPH Curriculum and Education Policy Committee is currently reviewing departmental peer review practices, with the aim of improving the efficiency, quality, and usefulness of these reviews.
Faculty performance is evaluated annually (except for professors who are evaluated every three years), as described above. In addition, when the Washington Legislature allocates funding for faculty salary merit increases, another review of faculty performance may be required, usually during spring quarter, to allocate merit raises. In most departments, faculty use both narrative comments and a numeric rating scale to assess performance. Student and peer evaluations of teaching, research, academic public health practice productivity, and service are all considered in the annual evaluations.
In compliance with University regulations, department chairs hold annual conferences with assistant professors to discuss results of the annual reviews. In the SPH, chairs are encouraged to hold these conferences with all faculty. The chair discusses strengths and weaknesses of the faculty member’s record as it relates to advancement, explains the department’s emphases on teaching, research or academic public health practice and service, discusses the “goodness of fit” of the faculty member’s work and the direction
and needs of the department, and makes suggestions to improve the faculty member’s record. The chair then provides the faculty member with a written summary of the conference, and a copy of this summary is given to the dean’s office. It is the chair’s responsibility to determine, together with the faculty
member's mentor and others as appropriate, a plan to assist faculty members who are having difficulty, either in teaching or research.
All promotion and tenure decisions require letters from at least four outside referees which are inherently evaluative; outside referees are asked to review/evaluate the candidate's CV, a sample of articles, and the candidate’s summary of his/her accomplishments.
4.2.D. Description of the processes used for student course evaluation and evaluation of instructional effectiveness.
All SPH courses are evaluated by students each time they are taught. Most faculty use standard UW evaluation forms provided by the Office of Educational Assessment, which include both quantitative scales and anonymous narrative sections. These evaluations are reviewed by the chairs and are included in the annual review materials for each faculty member. Aggregated statistics from these evaluations are used by the departments and the SPH to evaluate its teaching effectiveness.
Additionally, all departments have developed formal processes of faculty (peer) review for teaching effectiveness. These processes include a review of syllabi and other written course materials, as well as in-class peer observation; review of student evaluations, tests, assignments and grade distribution; and evaluations of teaching assistants. These assessments are shared with the instructor soon after they are conducted to support continual quality improvement of their teaching efforts. This material is included in the review packets for annual faculty reviews and promotions.
The SPH rewards excellence in teaching. Each year, students and faculty are invited to nominate faculty who are outstanding teachers. The Student Public Health Association reviews the nominations and selects a recipient for the SPH’s Outstanding Teaching Award. A plaque and award check are presented annually at the SPH’s graduation ceremony.
4.2.E. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met and an analysis of the SPH’s strengths, weaknesses and plans relating to this criterion.
Strengths
• The SPH has well-documented polices to recruit, appoint, and promote qualified faculty. • The SPH evaluates faculty effectiveness continually through reviews by peers and students. • The SPH and University provide substantial resources for faculty development.
• The SPH confers an Outstanding Teaching Award to one faculty member and an Outstanding Teaching Assistant Award each year to emphasize the importance of excellence in teaching.
Weaknesses/Challenges
• Recruitment, retention, and growth of faculty may be limited by the uncertainty surrounding the future of tenure funds.
• The faculty of the SPH is largely supported by grants and contracts, and the majority of regular senior faculty do not have tenure. Furthermore, even when tenure is conferred, it has become the practice in the SPH to provide tenure at only 50 percent FTE.
• The aging of the current SPH leadership will lead to a large number of retirements and vacancies over the next 5 to 10 years.
Plans
• The SPH will continue to identify/develop better opportunities for leadership training and development for its junior and mid-level faculty.
• Departments are developing succession plans and have successfully recruited a number of outstanding junior faculty in recent years.