Educational Studies

1. EDUCATIONAL STUDIES DEPARTMENT (EDS)

Language in italics is required by the University.  Changes since the previously approved version as a whole (2014) are in Calibri (this font) with dates indicated. These bylaws should be reviewed at least once every seven years, but once every other year is recommended.

1. Preamble (last revised 10/08/2021)

Department members are governed by six interdependent sets of regulations:

1. Federal and State laws and regulations
2. UW System policies and rules
3. UWL policies and rules
4. School of Education, Professional and Continuing Education (SOE) policies and rules
5. Shared governance bylaws and policies for ranked faculty and staff
6. Department bylaws

A.1. Department bylaws provide procedures for conducting Department business. They shall not conflict with the policies of the School of Education, Professional and Continuing Education (SOE), the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse (UWL) or the UW-System (UWS). In the event of such a conflict, the UWS, UWL or SOE policies or bylaws shall take precedence and the Department bylaws shall be amended accordingly.

A.2. The Department faculty is committed to developing graduates who embrace global perspectives within the teaching profession, respect the dignity of all learners, and demonstrate professional competencies enabling them to be effective teachers and responsible citizens in a diverse and dynamic world. The Department faculty subscribes to the Standards for Teacher Educators set forth in the Association for Teacher Educators.

A.3. The Department is comprised of teacher education programs including initial certification at the undergraduate levels (Early Childhood and Early Childhood Special Education, Elementary Middle Education, Elementary Middle Education Special Education. Elementary Middle Education TESOL).

A.4.  Department Programs:

The department houses the following majors and is comprised of the following programs:

Early Childhood Special Education (ECSE)

Elementary Middle Education (EME)

Elementary Middle Education (K-9) Special Education (K-12)

Elementary Middle Education (K-9) TESOL (K-12)

Meeting Guidelines

Department meetings will be run according to the most recent edition of Robert’s Rules of Order (http://www.robertsrules.com/) and WI state opening meeting laws summary at  https://www.wisconsin.edu/general-counsel/legal-topics/open-meetings-law/).

Department faculty meetings shall be called by the Department Chair, as needed to conduct Department business. A department meeting may be requested if a majority of the voting membership feels a meeting is needed to address department business.

B.1. Attendance

All voting members shall attend scheduled meetings.

B.2. Information on Minutes

Minutes will be recorded by a voting member or the departmental ADA and distributed in a timely fashion to department members. Copies of the minutes of department meetings and committee meetings shall be distributed to the department electronically and shall be made available upon request.

1. Definitions of Membership and Voting Procedures

 C.1.  Department Membership

The Department Chair, tenured and tenure-track faculty, Academic Staff, Academic Department Associate (ADA), and University Services Program Associate (USPA) that provide support to Department programs are considered Department members.

C.2.  Voting Membership

C.2.a. The Department Chair, tenured faculty, and tenure-track faculty in the Department shall have equal voting privileges in conducting Department business.

C.2.b. Instructional Academic Staff in permanently budgeted lines with at least 0.5 FTE appointment in the Department shall have equal voting privileges in conducting Department business.

C.3.  Voting Procedures

C.3.a. Each eligible voting member shall have one vote on Department business matters. All motions require a simple majority vote of those present, unless otherwise specified.

C.3.b. The Department Chair may request an electronic vote in conducting Department business. The Department Chair shall provide a deadline for electronic voting not less than two business days from the time the vote is called. All electronic motions of the Department shall require a simple majority vote of those submitting electronic ballots by the voting deadline for the motion to be passed.

C.3.c. Voting may be conducted by hand, roll call, electronic or paper ballot. If a paper ballot is used the ballots must be signed by each Department voting member and shall be kept in Department files for seven years from the date of the vote. The ballot is returned to the Department Chair to be counted as valid.

C.3.d. Votes received after the set timeline, received blank, or received unsigned (if required) will be counted as abstention votes.  Votes received after the set timeline or blank will count toward quorum.

1. Definitions of Quorum and Majority

A quorum is a simple majority of the Department voting membership. An electronic vote quorum is at least 2/3 of the department voting membership responding to the motion.

1. Changes of Bylaws

Department bylaws may be amended by a 2/3 vote of the Department voting membership. Bylaw changes are subject to two separate readings.

1. Changes to Curriculum

Changes to curriculum are subject to two separate readings, unless the second reading is waived by a majority of the membership present.

Faculty (Tenured and Tenure-Track faculty) 

• Faculty responsibilities are referenced in section IV of the Faculty Senate Policies entitled,  Responsibilities of Departments, Department Members, and Department Chairperson
• All ranked faculty have work responsibilities determined in consultation with the Department Chair to be consistent with this policy. Depending on courses needed for a given semester, qualified tenured and tenure-track faculty with graduate faculty status shall be given priority in teaching graduate course instructional assignments. EDS guidelines for teaching, scholarship, and service activities are aligned with JPC faculty promotion guidelines: https://www.uwlax.edu/globalassets/offices-services/human-resources/jpc-guide-to-faculty-promotions-jpcreview.5-10-2020.pdf

A.2.a. Teaching: All ranked faculty are expected to engage in instructional activities and advising to support student learning. For retention and promotion, ranked faculty need to demonstrate evidence of improving and developing their teaching (see Appendix A for criteria). 

A.2.b. Scholarship: All ranked faculty are expected to participate in appropriate scholarly activities.  For retention and promotion, ranked faculty will need to demonstrate evidence of appropriate scholarship (see Appendix B for criteria).

A.2.c. Service: All ranked faculty are expected to provide service to the Department, School, University, and Profession. For retention and promotion, ranked faculty will need to demonstrate evidence of appropriate service (see Appendix C for criteria).

1. Instructional Academic Staff (IAS) Responsibilities and Expectations

• Requests for IAS hiring will be presented to the SOE Dean. The request will indicate one of the standard titles from the lecturer or clinical professor series and will outline specific duties including teaching and any additional workload. Total workload for IAS is defined as a standard minimum teaching load plus additional workload equivalency activities. https://www.uwlax.edu/human-resources/services/classification-and-compensation/classification/ (see also Faculty Senate Articles, Bylaws and Policies).
• Full-time instructional academic staff engaged in undergraduate instruction typically have a teaching load of at least 12 contact hours of group instruction per week. Full-time instructional academic staff engaged in graduate instruction typically have a teaching load of at least 9 contact hours of group instruction per week. Half-time instructional academic staff engaged in undergraduate instruction typically have a teaching load of at least 6 contact hours of group instruction per week. The total workload for a half-time equivalency shall not exceed 8 contact hours (e.g., 6 contact hours teaching load plus up to 2 contact hours additional workload equivalency; see Appendix D for details).
• IAS responsibilities are predominantly related to the Department instructional mission. IAS members may also be expected to fulfill service and advising responsibilities as determined by the Chair and/or Dean. IAS promotion procedures can be found at https://www.uwlax.edu/globalassets/offices-services/human-resources/ias-promotion-guide.pdf.
• Evaluation of IAS is based primarily on their teaching activities, but also includes service and/or scholarship and/or professional development activities in accord with expectations outlined in their contracts. IAS in permanently budgeted lines with ≥ 50% FTE appointments will also participate in the standard EDS annual merit review procedures (see section IV).  IAS in non-permanently budgeted lines and/or with < 50% FTE appointments will be reviewed annually by the EDS Chair.

1. Student Evaluation of The Learning Environment (last revised 1/26/2023)

C.1. The department will follow the UWL LENS policy and procedure available on the Faculty Senate webpage (Link to UWL Faculty Senate LENS Policy). Results from student evaluation surveys are required for retention, tenure, post-tenure review, and promotion of tenure-track/tenured faculty and for renewal and promotion of Instructional Academic Staff. LENS summary reports (described in LENS Policy Section 1.C.3) must be included in promotion, retention, and tenure files. The LENS summary report contains student response frequencies for target responses to LENS items for courses taught within the last six semesters. Probationary ranked faculty will be expected to provide LENS summary reports since date of hire as assistant professors for retention and tenure decisions. LENS summary reports will be electronically accessible to personnel review committees who have been granted the authority to access them.

[Please note. Transition from Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEI) to LENS: UWL's approach to gathering student evaluations changed in Fall 2023. As such, during the transition years, any personnel review that requires submission of student evaluations will include data from two student evaluation systems: SEI (as guided by earlier policies) for review periods through Summer 2023 and LENS (as guided by current policy) for review periods beginning Fall 2023.

C.2.  For IAS review, contract renewal, and promotion, the same information as above is reported.  

The results of merit reviews for all ranked faculty who have completed at least one academic year at UWL are due to the Dean's Office on Dec. 15 annually. Merit reviews reflect activities during the prior academic year ending May 31. (2016 UWL Bylaws template). All faculty and IAS have a June 1st deadline for entering teaching, scholarship, and service activities into the electronic portfolios system Faculty Success (formerly Digital Measures) on activities from the prior year June 1st - May 31st.

1. Evaluation Processes & Criteria

• Faculty: All tenure track faculty with appointments in EDS will be reviewed for Merit, whether or not they elect to serve on a Merit Review Committee. Faculty members who are on FMLA or other personal leave for the entire academic year should not undergo merit review and should automatically retain the same merit rating as assigned in the previous year.
• Instructional Academic Staff in Permanent Budgeted Instructional Lines: All IAS members with at least 0.5 FTE appointment in EDS and in permanently budget lines will be reviewed for Merit, whether or not they elect to serve on a Merit Review Committee. If all faculty choose to not participate in the Merit review process, the Department Chair will make all merit decisions. In Workday, chairs are recommended to use either met or did not meet rather than partial or exceed. However, if used, both partial and exceed are considered “met” for pay plan.
• Academic Staff: NIAS are reviewed according to the policies in Section VII of these bylaws.
• Department Chair: The Department Chair is formally reviewed once each year using a survey administered by the SOE Dean. The review must involve feedback from the membership of the department and from the Dean. All department chairs are formally reviewed at least once during each 3-year term. The review involves feedback from the membership of the department and from the Dean and the process is described on the CASSH, CBA, CSH, Murphy, and SOE websites. The review need not be associated with merit; however, each department should indicate how non-instructional assignments are reviewed (see note und 1 above).
• Merit review committee composition:
  • All faculty and all IAS members of the department with at least 0.5 FTE (Full Time Equivalent) appointment are eligible to serve on the Merit Review Committee with the exception of faculty and IAS in their first year in the department.
  • The entire membership of the Department of Educational Studies will be divided into three groups that will comprise Merit Review Committee A, Merit Review Committee B, and Merit Committee C. The Department Chair will form the Merit Committees to represent the diversity of the department in rank, gender, ethnicity, race, and program area in each committee as much as possible.

       A.5. c.  The members of Merit Review Committee A perform the annual merit review for
                  members of Merit Review Committee B, and so on (B evaluates C, C evaluates A). 
                  The Merit Review Committee that reviews the Department Chair (for teaching,
                  scholarship, and service activities as a faculty member) will rotate years.

       A.5. d.   The Merit Review Committees are chaired by the Department Chair. The committee evaluating the Department Chair will select a chair who will then provide the Department Chair feedback.

• Merit evaluation criteria:
  • Evaluations of teaching, scholarship and service should be performed within the context of the Statements on Teaching (Appendix A), Scholarship (Appendix B), and Service (Appendix C).
  • Evaluations should take into consideration rank, time at UWL, and opportunities.
  • The Merit Narrative provided by the faculty member (defined in IV.A.1 and IV.A.2) should also be considered in evaluation. It can be a narrative or bulleted list form (defined in IV.A.8).
• Merit scoring timeline: The process involves several steps, which are outlined below and explained in greater detail in the following sections.
  • Materials due (uploaded to Canvas or equivalent) at the deadline set by the Provost calendar for the Annual Activity Report (typically early June).
    1. Annual Activity Report (Digital Measures or equivalent on activities from the prior year June 1st – May 31st) - uploaded by EDS member
    2. Peer Evaluation Letter(s) (where required for retention and/or promotion review years) - uploaded by EDS member
    3. Summary self-evaluation (narrative – IV.A.6.c) in each area - uploaded by EDS member
    4. LENS Summary Report results - uploaded by EDS Member
    5. Teaching assignment information (TAI) – (data sheet that summarizes the courses taught, workload data, and grade distribution) - uploaded by EDS Chair
  • Meetings of the Merit Review Committees – to be held during the week before the first week of Fall classes. The three Merit Review Committees may not convene at the same time.
  • Scoring - performed through an electronic survey within 7 calendar days following the Meeting of each Merit Review Committee.
  • Reporting out to the department – the Overall Merit Category score, individual Area scores, and supporting comments will be compiled by the Department Chair and provided to each faculty member within 21 days after the final scoring has been completed and to the Dean of the School of Education consistent with the University deadline.
  • Appeals – Any department member may submit an appeal of their merit ratings within 7 calendar days of dissemination of their final Merit report.
• Merit Scoring Areas: Faculty and Instructional Academic Staff are evaluated based on the components of their position descriptions, which informs all retention and promotion decisions. Specifically, the merit scoring areas are as follows:
  • Tenure Track Faculty:

Teaching

Scholarship

Service

• Instructional Academic Staff:

      Teaching

      Scholarship/Service (Professional Development activities)

• Merit Scoring Categories: The following categories are used to classify the performance of each faculty and instructional academic staff member in each of the Merit Scoring Areas (as defined in IV.A.8).

E        Exceeds expectations

M        Meets expectations

DM     Does not Meet expectations - submission of this score requires an accompanying explanation from the scorer.

• Teaching: Minimal expectations are articulated in Appendix A. Merit scoring details for teaching are in Appendix D.
• Scholarship: Minimal expectations are articulated in Appendix B. Details on merit scoring for scholarship are in Appendix D. 
• Service: Minimal expectations are articulated in Appendix C. Details for merit scoring are in Appendix D.

1. Appeals - Faculty and Instructional Academic Staff.

• Any Faculty or Instructional Academic Staff member may request a reconsideration of his/her Performance Ratings and Merit Category Designation. This request must be made in writing to the Department Chair within 7 calendar days of the distribution of the Final Merit report by the Department Chair. The request should include written documentation to support the reason for the appeal. An appeal may be made if the department member believes the merit rating was awarded under the following conditions:
  • bias
  • conflict of interest
  • lack of expertise
  • factual errors
• The Department Chair will assemble an Appeals Review Committee consisting of the Department Chair, plus 3 members of the two EDS Merit Review Committee(s) that did not originally review that member’s portfolio, plus 1 faculty or IAS member from outside of the Department. The appellant will be notified within 10 calendar days of the filing of the appeal. The appellant may request the replacement of up to one of the members of the Appeals Review Committee within 2 working days of receiving notification of the Appeals Review Committee membership. The Appeals Review Committee will meet to consider the appeal within 10 calendar days after final membership has been established.
• The Appeals Review Committee shall consider the original materials submitted for Merit review and the additional materials submitted for the appellant using the EDS Merit evaluation criteria and the procedure outlined in IV.A.9 and Appendix D. The committee will express their findings in a report that is transmitted by the Department Chair to the appellant within three working days after the reconsideration meeting. To change the original Merit Category Designation, at least 60% (⅗) of the votes of the Appeals Review Committee must be in favor of the change.

The Department will follow the policies regarding retention and tenure described in the Faculty Personnel Rules (UWS 3.06-3.11 and UWL 3.06-3.08 https://www.uwlax.edu/human-resources/unclassified-personnel-rules/). Tenure/retention decisions will be guided by the criteria established in the Department bylaws at the time of hire unless a candidate elects to be considered under newer guidelines. The criteria outlined in Section V in these bylaws should be applied to all faculty with a contract date after May 31, 2017, and to any faculty that elect to be considered under these bylaws. Faculty hired prior to May 31, 2017 that elect to be considered under the bylaws herein must indicate their wishes in writing to the EDS Chair and UWL Human Resources. The Department will follow policies guiding part-time appointments for ranked faculty and tenure clock stoppage available on the Human Resources website.

1. Retention (procedure, criteria, and appeal)
   • Ranked Faculty under review provide an electronic portfolio related to their teaching, scholarship, and service activities extracted from their date of hire to date of departmental review. Hyperlinked syllabi are required and the candidate may choose to provide additional evidence. Additional materials required for departmental review are indicated in these bylaws (see section V.A.7).
   • Departments will provide the following materials to the Dean:
     • Department letter of recommendation with vote
     • Teaching assignment information (TAI) data sheet that summarizes the courses taught, workload data, and grade distribution.
     • SEI or LENS responses by individual course and semester
     • Merit evaluation data
   • The initial review of probationary faculty shall be conducted by the tenured faculty of the Department of Educational Studies in the manner outlined below.
   • Tenure track faculty reviews:
     • All first-year tenure-track faculty will be formally reviewed in the spring of their first year. A departmental letter will be filed with the Dean and HR. Reviews resulting in contract decisions will minimally occur for tenure-track faculty in their 2, 4^th, and 6^th
     • During the non-contract review years, the review process should follow these departmental bylaws. The PRT committee review letter is due to the Dean on May 1 of the non-contract review year.
   • Retention Review Timeline and Procedures
     • The ES Chair will provide the schedule of EDS PRT Committee deadlines, and a list of the EDS probationary faculty members that are eligible for contract and non-contract review to all department members within five (5) calendar days of receiving the information from Human Resources.
     • At least twenty (20) calendar days prior to each review, the EDS Chair will give each probationary faculty member written notice of the scheduled review meeting.
     • At least ten (10) calendar days prior to their review, the probationary faculty member is responsible for providing their materials to the Department Chair.
     • The Department Chair will make available electronic copies of the materials provided by the probationary faculty member, and required materials provided by the Chair (see section V.A.7) to the PRT Committee members within seven (7) calendar days of each probationary faculty member’s review meeting. EDS PRT Committee members will review in advance the materials submitted for retention by the probationary faculty member and the EDS Chair.
     • Retention Review Meeting:
       • Advance notice of the retention review will be published according to University policy and Wisconsin Open Meeting Law.
       • The probationary faculty member in a contract-review year shall attend their contract review meeting, make an oral presentation, and engage in a question and answer session with the EDS PRT Committee about their record of teaching, scholarship, and service. This is optional in a non-contract review year.
       • Probationary faculty may bring guests to their review meeting (while the PRT Committee is in open session) if they so choose. Guests attending the meeting may not participate.
       • Retention review meetings may go into closed session as per Wisconsin Statute 19.85(1)(c). A majority roll-call vote is required to move into closed session. The probationary faculty member and guests will be excused before going into closed meeting.
       • The PRT Committee will designate a writer for the letter describing the outcome of the review, including the date of the vote, the numerical outcome, a clear indication of a 1 or 2 year contract recommendation, and departmental review of the strengths and weaknesses of the faculty member’s teaching, scholarship and service. All PRT Committee members will have a reasonable opportunity to give feedback on the letter, and the final letter will be shared with all PRT Committee members prior to sharing it with the probationary faculty member.
       • The EDS Department Chair shall notify the probationary faculty member of the recommendation of the PRT Committee in writing within seven (7) calendar days of the review meeting (UWL 3.06). The review letter shall be shared with the probationary faculty member and the Dean as formal notice of the outcome of the review by the deadline set by the Provost.
       • Copies of the EDS PRT Committee and Department Chair (if applicable) letters will be provided to the Dean, along with the review materials provided to the PRT Committee by the probationary faculty member and EDS Chair.
       • In the case of a non-renewal decision, the candidate may request reconsideration by the DES PRT committee in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the UWS 3.07/UWL 3.07 personnel rules.
     • Retention Expectations
       • Teaching, scholarship/creative work, and service contributions from the time of hire are evaluated as part of contract and non-contract reviews.
       • Probationary faculty members are expected to provide evidence in support of their teaching, scholarship, and service contributions that align with the definitions in Appendices A, B, and C.
       • Annual Merit evaluations (overall Merit evaluation scores and Merit area scores) from the time of hire are evaluated as part of contract and non-contract reviews.
       • Teaching expectations:
         • Probationary faculty members are expected to meet the minimal expectations for teaching as articulated in Appendix A: Statement on Teaching and supported by annual Merit evaluation scores in teaching.
         • Probationary faculty members are expected to be effective teachers. “Effective teaching” is documented by self-assessment of teaching, peer evaluation of teaching, and student evaluation of instruction, as outlined in Appendix A. Effective teaching should be supported by annual Merit evaluation scores in teaching. 
         • Probationary faculty members are expected to document engagement in additional activities that advance their ongoing growth as teachers and maintain expertise, as articulated in Appendix A “Additional Teaching Contributions”, and this engagement should be supported by annual Merit evaluation scores in teaching.
       • Scholarship Expectations
         • Probationary faculty members are expected to meet the minimal expectations for scholarship as articulated in Appendix B: Statement on Scholarship, and supported by annual Merit evaluation scores in scholarship.
         • In addition, probationary faculty members are expected to demonstrate an ongoing record of research and scholarly activity that impacts the scholarly community, leading to the generation of scholarly, peer-reviewed contributions by the tenure decision. Examples of scholarship at different levels of impact are provided in Appendix B.
       • Service Expectations
         • Probationary faculty members are expected to meet the minimal expectations for service as articulated in Appendix C: Statement on Service, and supported by annual Merit evaluation scores in service.
         • Probationary faculty members are expected to demonstrate an ongoing record of service in a variety of areas, and these efforts should be supported by annual Merit evaluation scores in service. Examples of different categories of service and their levels of impact are provided in Appendix C.
       • Materials and Evidence
         • Probationary faculty members undergoing Contract or Non-Contract reviews shall provide the following materials to the Department Chair according to the timeline described in V.A.5.
           • A completed Retention Report, with appropriate evidence hyperlinked (teaching, scholarship, and service), drawn from UWL’s electronic portfolio system inclusive of all years of employment at UW-L.
           • A completed Annual Activities (Merit) Report, with appropriate evidence hyperlinked (teaching, scholarship, and service), drawn from UW-L’s electronic portfolio system from the most recent year of employment at UWL.
           • A narrative statement summarizing and contextualizing the probationary faculty member’s contributions in teaching, scholarship, and service, with the goal of building towards the 7-page narrative required for promotion consideration (https://www.uwlax.edu/human-resources/faculty-promotion-resources/). The narrative for retention reviews should also include (maximum 1 page): responses to recommendations from the previous review (if appropriate), and a brief summary of goals and plans for goal attainment in preparation for the next review.  This narrative should be uploaded to the electronic portfolio and included as a hyperlink in the Retention Report.
         • The Department Chair will assemble the following materials and provide them to the PRT committee (in addition to the items in A.7.a) according to the timeline described in V.A.5.
           • A Teaching Assignment Information (TAI) report for the probationary faculty member since their time of hire.
           • LENS Summary Reports for all courses taught since the probationary faculty member’s time of hire.
           • Merit evaluation scores and rankings since the probationary faculty member’s time of hire.
           • Copies of Contract and Non-Contract review letters from all previous reviews.
           • Peer observation of teaching letters since the time of hire.
         • Retention Decision Appeal—Non-Renewal of Probationary Faculty: Any probationary faculty member who is denied Contract renewal may appeal the decision of the DES PRT Committee according to Faculty Personnel Rules UWS 3.06-3.11 and UWL 3.06-3.08)

1. Tenure Review and Departmental Tenure Criteria (procedures, criteria, and appeal)

B.1. Tenure Review Procedures

B.1.a. Tenure decisions are made by the Educational Studies Department Promotion, Tenure, Retention (EDS PRT) Committee, considering only activities accomplished since the time of hire at UWL.

B.1.b. Tenure decision requires a 2/3 majority vote of the entire PRT Committee membership. Attendance via phone or video conference is allowed. Proxy voting is not allowed. In accordance with Robert’s Rules, abstention is appropriate ONLY under two conditions: insufficient information or a conflict of interest.

B.2. Tenure Review Meeting Procedures  

B.2.a. The DES Chair will provide a schedule of DES PRT Committee deadlines, and a list of the DES probationary faculty members that are eligible for tenure to all department members within fifteen (15) calendar days of receiving the information from Human Resources

B.2.b. At least twenty (20) calendar days prior to the tenure review, the DES Chair will give each eligible probationary faculty member written notice of the scheduled tenure review meeting. 

B.2.c. At least ten (10) calendar days prior to the review meeting, the eligible probationary faculty members are responsible for providing their materials to the Department Chair.

B.2.d.  The Department Chair will make available electronic copies of the materials provided by the probationary faculty member, and required materials provided by the Chair (see section V.A.7) to the PRT Committee members within seven (7) calendar days of each probationary faculty member’s tenure review meeting. DES PRT Committee members will review in advance the materials all written evidence submitted for tenure by the probationary faculty member and the DES Chair

B.2.e. Advance notice of the tenure review will be published according to University policy and Wisconsin Open Meeting law.

B.2.f. Probationary faculty have the right to declare the deliberative part of the tenure meeting open (See s. 19. 85 (1) (b); https://www.wisconsin.edu/general-counsel/legal-topics/open-meetings-law/).  The tenure candidate may ask that the meeting be conducted in open session by submitting a written request to the DES chair at least seven (7) calendar days before the meeting.

B.2.g. The tenure candidate shall attend their tenure review meeting, make an oral presentation, and engage in a question and answer session with the committee about their record of teaching, scholarship, and service.  Guests may attend the meeting while it is in open session, but may not participate.

B.2.h All decisions are made on the basis of the evidence provided by the candidate and the Chair, as outlined in section V.B.4 of these bylaws. If the meeting is conducted in open session, all discussion and voting for tenure will take place with the candidate and guests present. If the candidate does not request an open meeting, the committee may move into closed session as provided in section 19.85(1)(b) of Wisconsin Statutes, and the candidate and guests will be excused from the meeting. The committee will vote by show of hands on a motion to recommend tenure.

B.2.i. The DES Department Chair shall notify the tenure candidate of the recommendation of the PRT Committee in writing within seven (7) calendar days of the review meeting (UWL 3.06).  

B.2.j. The PRT Committee will designate a writer for the formal letter describing the outcome of the review, including the date of the vote, the numerical outcome, a recommendation for or against tenure, and departmental review of the strengths and areas for growth of the faculty member’s teaching, scholarship and service.  All PRT Committee members will have a reasonable opportunity to give feedback on the letter, and the final letter will be shared with all PRT Committee members prior to sharing it with the probationary faculty member.

B.2.k. The review letter shall be shared with the probationary faculty member and the Dean as formal notice of the outcome of the review by the deadline set by the Provost.

B.2.l. In the case of a non-renewal decision, the candidate may request reconsideration by the PRT committee in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the UWS 3.07/UWL 3.07 personnel rules.

B.3. Tenure Expectations

B.3.a. Tenure decisions by the PRT Committee are peer reviews of past and expected performance. Consequently, in making tenure decisions, the PRT Committee considers all evidence bearing on the potential of candidates in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service, including materials submitted by the tenure candidate and Department Chair (according to section V.B.4 of these bylaws), results of annual Merit reviews, and results of Contract and Non-Contract reviews. 

B.3.b. Teaching Expectations: Teaching is evaluated through peer evaluations of teaching (section D.1.b), and student evaluations of the learning environment (i.e. LENS), Teaching Assignment Information (TAI), annual Merit evaluations, and documentation associated with the tenure candidate’s electronic portfolio.

[Please note. UWL's approach for gathering student feedback on instruction changed in the fall of 2023. As such, during the transition years, contract, non-contract, and promotion meetings will include two types of student evaluation systems: Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEI) and LENS (previously defined).]

B.3.b.1. All faculty members are expected to meet the minimal expectations for teaching as articulated in Appendix A: Statement on Teaching

B.3.b.2. All faculty are expected to be effective teachers. “Effective teaching” is documented by self-assessment of teaching, peer evaluation of teaching, and student evaluation of instruction, as outlined in Appendix A.

B.3.b.3. All faculty are expected to be engaged in additional activities (as articulated in Appendix A “Additional Teaching Contributions”) that advance their ongoing growth as teachers and maintain their expertise.

B.3.c. Scholarship/creative work expectations:

B.3.c.1. Tenure candidates are expected to demonstrate an ongoing record of research and scholarly activity that impacts the scholarly community. 

B.3.c.2. All faculty are required to participate in scholarship that leads to scholarly products as detailed in Appendix B; higher preference is given to peer-reviewed publications and presentations with a national or international scope. Probationary faculty should have evidence of scholarly works that advance the profession in their research area as based on publications and presentations.   Probationary faculty should have clear evidence of the potential for an ongoing and sustainable pattern of publication and other forms of dissemination (including grant writing and presentations). 

B.3.c.3. By the tenure decision, it is also expected that candidates will have made multiple presentations at a variety of levels of impact and scope.

B.3.d. Service expectations:

B.3.d.1.  Faculty are expected to meet the minimal expectations for service as articulated in Appendix C: Statement on Service

B.3.d.2.  Faculty are expected to demonstrate active participation in service in a variety of areas, with evidence of growth in responsibility by tenure.  Tenure candidates should also provide evidence for potential growth in level of responsibility and scope.  Examples of different categories of service and their levels of impact are provided in Appendix C.

B.4. Required Materials for Tenure Review

B.4.a. Materials from the Tenure Candidate: The faculty member will upload all evidence in support of their activities into their electronic portfolio. 

B.4.a.1. A completed Retention Report, with appropriate evidence in support of teaching, scholarship, and service hyperlinked, drawn from UW-L’s electronic portfolio system inclusive of all years of employment at UW-L.

 

B.4.a.2. A completed Annual Activities (Merit) Report, with appropriate evidence in support of teaching, scholarship, and service hyperlinked, drawn from UW-L’s electronic portfolio system from the most recent year of employment at UWL.

B.4.a.3 A narrative statement summarizing and contextualizing the probationary faculty member’s contributions in teaching, scholarship, and service, with the goal of building towards the 7-page narrative required for promotion consideration (https://www.uwlax.edu/human-resources/faculty-promotion-resources/).  The narrative for retention reviews should also include (maximum 1 page): responses to recommendations from previous reviews, and a brief summary of including short term and long-term goals and plans for goal attainment in preparation for the next review. This narrative should be uploaded to the electronic portfolio and included as a hyperlink in the Retention Report.

B.4.b. Materials from the Department Chair:

B.4.b.1. A Teaching Assignment Information (TAI) report for the probationary faculty member since their time of hire.

B.4.b.2.  Complete LENS Summary reports for the tenure candidate for all courses taught since their time of hire.

B.4.b.3.  Merit evaluation scores and rankings since the tenure candidate’s time of hire.

B.4.b.4.  Copies of Contract and Non-Contract review letters from all previous reviews.

B.4.b.5.  Letters documenting peer observations of teaching since the tenure candidate’s time of hire.

B.5. Tenure Decision Appeal—Non-Renewal of Probationary Faculty: Probationary faculty may appeal a tenure denial decision of the DES PRT Committee and/or parties to the hearing committee established under UWL 3.08.  (Faculty Personnel Rules UWS 3.06-3.11 and UWL 3.06-3.08).

 

1. Post-Tenure Review

The department follows the UWL procedure and schedule regarding post-tenure review as seen in the  HR policy - Post tenure review policy.

 

C.1 Expectations

C.1.a. Faculty undergoing post-tenure review must meet the minimal expectations for teaching, scholarship, and service as articulated in Appendices A, B, and C, respectively.

C.1.b. Faculty undergoing post-tenure review are expected to be effective teachers, as outlined in Appendix A. Types of evidence documenting effective teaching may include, but is not limited to, Merit scores in teaching, peer evaluations, SEIs, self-assessment of teaching (narrative).

C.1.c. Faculty undergoing post-tenure review should have evidence of scholarly works that advance the profession in their research area, as outlined in Appendix B. Types of evidence documenting active scholarship may include, but is not limited to, Merit scores in scholarship, publications, presentations and/or grants. 

C.1.d. Faculty undergoing post-tenure review should have evidence of participation in service activities, as outlined in Appendix C. Types of evidence documenting active service may include, but is not limited to, Merit scores in service, department/School/university committee work, and/or professional service. 

C.2 Materials: Faculty undergoing post-tenure review must submit their electronic portfolio to the Department Chair within the timeline established by the UWL Post-Tenure Review policy (https://www.uwlax.edu/human-resources/post-tenure-review-policy/).  Peer observation letters obtained according to section D.1.d should be uploaded by the faculty member as additional evidence in their electronic portfolio.  The Department Chair will provide LENS Summary Reports and TAI reports for the 5-year post-tenure review period.

1. Faculty Promotion Procedures (procedure, criteria and appeal)
   
   

The department will follow the guidelines and schedules regarding faculty promotion available at  https://www.uwlax.edu/academic-affairs/provost-promotion-resources/

D.1. Promotion Timeline and Procedures

D.1.a.     The composition of the PRT (Promotion Retention Tenure) Committee is defined according to section VIII.B.4.e.

D.1.b.     The department shall follow the timeline and procedures outlined in the Guide to Faculty Promotions, Appendix B.  

D.1.c.     At least twenty (20) calendar days prior to each review, the Department Chair will give a search faculty member eligible for promotion written notice of their scheduled review meeting.

D.1.d.     At least ten (10) calendar days prior to their review meeting, the candidate for promotion is responsible for providing their materials to the Department Chair.  

D.1.e.     The Department Chair will make available electronic copies of the materials provided by the candidate for promotion, and required materials provided by the Chair (as specified in the Guide to Faculty Promotions) to the PRT Committee members within seven (7) calendar days of the review meeting. DES PRT Committee members will review in advance the materials submitted by the candidate for promotion and the DES Chair.

D.1.f. Promotion Review Meeting:

D.1.f.1. Advance notice of the promotion review will be published according to University policy and Wisconsin Open Meeting Law. The meeting may go into closed session according to WI 19.85(1)(c).

D.1.f.2. The DES Department Chair shall notify the probationary faculty member of the decision of the PRT Committee in writing within seven (7) calendar days of the review meeting.  

D.1.f.3. The PRT Committee will designate a writer for the letter describing the outcome of the review.  All PRT Committee members will have a reasonable opportunity to give feedback on the letter, and the final letter will be shared with all PRT Committee members prior to sharing it with the candidate for promotion.  

D.1.f.4. In the case of a recommendation for promotion, the letter will become part of the candidate’s promotion portfolio that is forwarded to the Dean according to the timeline set forward by UWL policy.  

D.1.f.5. In the case of a negative decision by the PRT committee, the candidate may follow the appeal procedures outlined in the Guide to Faculty Promotions, Appendix B.  

D.1.f.6. Promotion Decision Appeal/Reconsideration: Faculty may appeal a non-promotion decision. An appeal shall follow the appeal process as outlined in the Faculty Senate Bylaws https://www.uwlax.edu/globalassets/committees/faculty-senate/faculty-senate-manual-021417.pdf

D.2. Promotion Expectations.

D.2.a. Teaching, scholarship/creative work, and service contributions from the time of hire (for promotion to Associate Professor) or from the time of last promotion (for promotion to Full Professor) are evaluated as part of promotion reviews. In general, the PRT committee focuses on the evidence provided by the candidate describing their work at UWL, although activities stemming from work prior to joining the faculty at UWL is considered in terms of the overall career trajectory of the faculty member.

D.2.b . Faculty members applying for promotion are expected to provide evidence in support of their teaching, scholarship, and service contributions that align with the definitions in Appendices A, B, and C, and the UWL promotion guidelines.  To be considered for promotion to a higher rank, faculty must meet the minimum University criteria for that rank as specified in the Guide to Faculty Promotions.

D.2.c. For promotion to Associate Professor, there should be clear evidence that the candidate's work is consistent with promotion criteria outlined in the Guide to Faculty Promotions.  For the rank of Associate Professor a candidate must provide evidence of teaching excellence, establishment of a productive program of scholarship, and a record of active service, as outlined in Appendices A, B, and C of the DES bylaws.

D.2.d. For promotion to Full Professor, there should be documented evidence that the candidate has made substantial contributions to teaching, scholarship, and service, and meets the other criteria outlined in the Guide to Faculty Promotions. To be promoted to Full Professor, a faculty member must show evidence of leadership and continued excellence in teaching, scholarship, and service, as outlined in Appendices A, B, and C of the DES bylaws.

D.3. Required Materials for Promotion Review

D.3.a. Faculty members applying for promotion shall provide their materials to the Department Chair according to the timeline described in V.D.1 in the form of an electronic promotion portfolio as specified in the Guide to Faculty Promotions. The portfolio shall include reassignment letters associated with non-instructional workload assignments.

D.3.b. The Department Chair will provide the following materials to the PRT committee as specified in the Guide to Faculty Promotions according to the timeline described in V.D.1.

D.3.b.1. A Teaching Assignment Information (TAI) report for the faculty member since their time of hire.

D.3.b.2. Merit evaluation scores and rankings from the most recent 3 years.

D.3.c. In the case of a positive recommendation for promotion from the PRT Committee, the Department Chair will provide the following materials to the Dean as specified in the Guide to Faculty Promotions in the form of a Departmental promotion report according to the timeline described in V.D.1.

D.3.c.1. The candidate’s promotion portfolio

D.3.c.2. A Teaching Assignment Information (TAI) report for the probationary faculty member since their time of hire.

D.3.c.3. Merit evaluation scores and rankings from the most recent 3 years.

D.3.c.4. The PRT committee letter

D.3.c.5. The promotion transmittal form

1. Faculty Promotion Procedures

            E.1 Peer Observation Policies

E.1.a. Probationary faculty in their first three years at UWL shall be reviewed at least once in two different semesters.  In the Fall semester, the PRT committee will assign a tenured faculty peer reviewer.  In a different semester (Winter, Spring, Summer), the probationary faculty member will arrange for a different member of the Department to serve as peer reviewer.

E.1.b. Probationary faculty in their fourth year or later shall be reviewed at least once per year. In Contract review years, the PRT committee will assign a tenured faculty peer reviewer. In Non-Contract review years, any member of the Department may serve as peer reviewer.

E.1.c. Tenured faculty who are eligible for promotion are expected to have at least 3 peer reviews included in their promotion portfolio from within the most recent 5-year period.  A peer evaluator could include tenured or probationary faculty, instructional academic staff, and/or in-service teachers or other peers capable of evaluating teaching performance.

E.1.d. Tenured faculty undergoing Post-tenure review are expected to have at least 1 peer review letter included in their electronic portfolio from within the most recent 5-year period. A peer evaluator could include tenured or probationary faculty, instructional academic staff, and/or in-service teachers or other peers capable of evaluating teaching performance.

 

E.2.  Peer Observation Procedures

 

Each observation should include a pre-observation meeting, a teaching observation, a post-observation meeting, and an observation letter.)

E.2.a. Pre-observation meeting: Prior to the classroom observation, the candidate and the assigned faculty member should meet to discuss pedagogical practices, course delivery methods, and objectives for the class period to be observed.

E.2.b. Teaching observation: A teaching observation should be at least one full class period in length (a minimum of 55 minutes) .

E.2.c. Post-observation meeting: Following the classroom observation, the candidate and the assigned faculty member should meet to discuss pedagogical practices, course delivery methods, objectives, and questions for the class period observed as well as any recommendations for future instruction.

E.2.d. Observation Letter: The report should contain a summary of the observation, including the following: name of the candidate observed, date, course title, and description of the class content and activities observed, strengths, and suggested areas of improvement.

Instructional Academic Staff (IAS) are instructional staff hired to teach on a part-time or full-time contractual basis to deliver content within the department/program curriculum and provide service where necessary.

 

1. Annual Review

A.1.  In accordance with Unclassified Personnel Rules Chapter 10, , academic staff will be evaluated annually.  The Department follows the policy regarding performance reviews found here: https://www.uwlax.edu/human-resources/employees/supervisors/performance-management/.

A.2.  IAS positions in permanently budgeted lines will also be reviewed for Merit according to EDS ByLaws section IV.

A.3.  Annual Performance Review Procedures for IAS in Permanently Budgeted Lines (“WI Redbook Positions/Teaching Professors”):

A.3.a. The Department Chair serves as the supervisor for IAS.

A.3.b. EDS PRT Committee will complete the annual performance evaluation in contract review years. The Department Chair will complete the annual performance evaluation, in consultation with the PRT committee on a case-by-case basis as determined by the Chair, in non-contract review years.

A.3.c. IAS personnel under contract review will provide an electronic portfolio related to their teaching, and scholarship/professional development/service activities extracted over a four year (consecutive) period (or since the time of hire if less than four years) inclusive of the current review year. Hyperlinked syllabi are required and the candidate may choose to provide additional hyperlinked evidence. A narrative is required in contract years, consisting of a compilation of the merit narratives from the same time period as the portfolio.

The narrative statement describes the IAS member’s accomplishments in teaching, professional development/creative activity/scholarship (PD/CA/Sch) and/or service. The IAS member may write up to 7 pages total in one narrative document for teaching, PD/CA/Sch and/or service. The most outstanding achievements should be highlighted. A special effort should be taken to emphasize the value and quality of the work, not merely the quantity. In general the IAS member’s report should present this information in the context of the member’s goals and teaching standards.

Additional materials required for departmental review are indicated in these bylaws (see section V.A.7).

A.3.d. Annual IAS faculty review deadlines are determined by the University schedule. 

A.3.e. The Department Chair will share the results of the review with the IAS member, and provide the results to the Dean and HR as dictated by UWL policy. https://www.uwlax.edu/human-resources/services/employee-relations/performance-management/

A.4. Annual Performance Review Procedures for IAS in Non-Permanently budgeted Lines:

A.4.a. The Department Chair serves as the supervisor for IAS.

A.4.b. The Department Chair will complete the annual performance evaluation, in consultation with the PRT committee and/or Program Director as appropriate on a case-by-case basis as determined by the Chair.

A.4.c. Materials for review include SEIs, peer observation(s) of instruction, syllabi, and other information that is pertinent to the review as determined by the Chair.

A.4.d. Reviews will follow the University schedule for IAS Annual Review. 

A.4.e. The Chair will share the results of the review with the IAS member, and provide the results to the Dean and HR as dictated by UWL policy. https://www.uwlax.edu/human-resources/services/employee-relations/performance-management/

1. IAS Promotion Procedures

Policies and procedure guiding promotion for IAS are available at https://www.uwlax.edu/academic-affairs/provost-promotion-resources/

A.1. IAS may choose to advance through Promotion.

A.2. IAS promotion portfolios are reviewed by the DES PRT Committee.

A.3. IAS seeking promotion are evaluated on the basis of their Teaching and Professional Development/Creative Activity/Scholarship and/or Service.

A.3.a. An IAS member seeking promotion must be an effective instructor as defined by the Statement of Teaching (Appendix A). The faculty member will also be able to use LENS summary reports and faculty observations to provide evidence of teaching effectiveness over time.

A.3.b. An IAS member seeking promotion must demonstrate an ongoing record of Professional Development/Creative Activity/Scholarship and/or Service as defined in DES Appendices B and C.

 

1. Appeal Decision Procedures re: Annual Review: The same procedures used for ranked faculty appeals in retention and promotion issues (see V.A) will be used for IAS retention and career progression decisions.

Annually, supervisors of Academic Staff and university staff employees are expected to meet with their employees to discuss department/unit goals, employee career goals and supervisory position expectations according to UWL policy: (https://www.uwlax.edu/human-resources/services/employee-relations/performance-management/). Performance reviews of non-instructional academic staff (NIAS) are due in Workday no later than the end of October.

1. Academic Staff do not have teaching responsibilities. Department members who are Academic Staff are reviewed annually by the Department Chair. Academic Staff requesting career progression must follow procedures found at: https://www.uwlax.edu/contentassets/6e92dc3682144d149d02cfd004f157ca/career-progression-review-application-procedures.pdf
2. Department members who are University Staff such as Academic Departmental Associates (ADAs) or University Services Program Associates (USPAs) are reviewed annually by the Department Chair.(https://www.uwlax.edu/human-resources/services/employee-relations/performance-management/).

Department Chair

The Department Chair is elected and serves a three year term. A past Chair may serve consecutive terms if no other qualified tenured faculty member is elected. The Department will adhere to the selection and duties of the Chair that are delineated in the Faculty Senate Bylaws found at  https://www.uwlax.edu/globalassets/committees/faculty-senate/20211115-bylaws_articles-fs.pdf  and  https://www.uwlax.edu/human-resources/remuneration-and-release-time-for-department-chairs/ under the heading "IV. Responsibilities of Departments, Department Members, and Department Chairpersons" and "VI. Remuneration of Department Chairperson."

A.1. Election Process

During February of the final year of the Department Chair's term, the Dean’ Office will send a nominating ballot containing all names of Department members eligible to serve as Department Chair to all eligible voting members of the Department. Nominated list members may remove their name from the ballot.  The remaining eligible names are put on the official voting ballot.  The eligible voting members will vote for one person. If an individual receives 60% or more of the votes, and is willing to serve, then that person becomes Department Chair. If no person receives 60% of the votes, then the Dean places the names of the two highest vote getters on another ballot and an election occurs. Ballots are counted by the Dean’s Office. The person receiving the highest vote total in the second election becomes the Department Chair. The new term starts July 1.

A.2. Rights and Responsibilities of the Department Chair

A.2.a. Rights

A.2.a.1. The Department Chair will receive release time and salary adjustment to conduct the administrative duties as outlined in “VI. Remuneration of Department Chairpersons” of the Faculty Senate Bylaws https://www.uwlax.edu/globalassets/committees/faculty-senate/20211115-bylaws_articles-fs.pdf

 

A.2.a.2. The Department Chair will have an Administrative Department Associate (ADA) assigned to the Department Chair.

 

A.2.a.3. The Department Chair represents the Department faculty voice in all matters to the administration.

A.2.b. Responsibilities:

 

A.2.b.1. The Department Chair responsibilities are outlined in the Faculty Senate Bylaws https://www.uwlax.edu/faculty-senate/articles-bylaws-and-policies/. In addition, references to chair-related duties are in the Employee Handbook https://kb.uwlax.edu/131741.

 

A.2.b.2. Instructional Course Assignment Policy. Course instructor assignments are made by the Department Chair in consultation with appropriate Program Director &/or faculty members, teaching professors, and lecturers. Graduate course assignments are made by the Department Chair based on expertise, graduate faculty status, and availability. Summer and Winter session course assignments are made by the Department Chair based on past summer instruction opportunities, expertise, and availability.

A.2.c. Department Chair Evaluation: The evaluation of the Department Chairperson is a survey administered annually by the SOE Dean and completed by DES membership.

 

1. Standing Departmental Committees

B.1. All committees shall meet during the first month of the academic year to elect officers and set regular meeting times. All committees follow the most recent edition of Robert’s Rules of Order. 

B.2. The Department Chair appoints committee membership and sets conveners. Individual committee membership elects a chair and recorder.

 

B.3. A quorum is 50% of committee membership.  A majority vote is required for all motion approval. Committee members are expected to attend regularly scheduled meetings. The Department Chair may replace a committee member with another Department member if committee duties cannot be carried out.

 

B.4. Standing committees include the following:

B.4.a. Admissions Committees: The DES has an Admissions Committee for candidates applying to the ECE (previously ECMC) and EME (previously MCEA), including EME/FRE, EME/SPA, EME/SPE, and EME/TSL programs. Committee membership may consist of tenured and tenure-track faculty and Instructional Academic Staff with at least an 0.5 FTE assignment in an undergraduate program.

The duties of each Admissions Committee include:

B.4.a.1. developing, reviewing, and revising admission criteria and procedures

B.4.a.2. providing faculty and candidates with information regarding the criteria and process for applicant reviews.

B.4.a.3. reviewing application materials and making admissions decisions

B.4.a.4. communicating with the Department Chair and SOE Office as appropriate to share the results of the admissions decisions.

 

B.4.b. Appeals Committee: The Appeals Committee’s membership may consist of tenured and tenure-track faculty and Instructional Academic Staff with at least a 0.5 FTE assignment, and must also include the Department Chair. This committee meets only as needed to review final course grade and undergraduate program admission denial appeals.

 

B.4.c. Assessment Committee: The Assessment Committee oversees the Department assessment.  Assessment Committee membership may consist of tenured and tenure-track faculty and Instructional Academic Staff with at least an 0.5 FTE assignment. Assessment data will be forwarded to the Assessment Committee by the Department Chair after identifying information has been removed. The duties of the Assessment Committee may include:

B.4.c.1. Creating, implementing, and maintaining assessment tools for documenting: advising effectiveness for DES programs, Writing in the Major assessment, student success metrics, consistency in outcomes across course sections, Academic Program Reviews (APR), University Biennial Assessments, and SOE assessments. 

B.4.c.2. communicating with Program Directors/Coordinators and SOE staff to coordinate assessment efforts as required by the Department of Public Instruction.

 

B.4.d. Curriculum Committee: The Committee aims to be comprised of one representative from each program in the Department. Duties are assigned by the Department Chair. 

 

B.4.e. Promotion, Retention and Tenure (PRT) Committee is comprised of all Department tenured faculty with at least an 0.5 FTE appointment in the department. The Department Chair is a member of the PRT Committee. The committee members shall elect a chair of the PRT committee. Duties of the PRT Committee include:

B.4.e.1. developing procedures consistent with those of UWS and UWL for purposes of conducting promotion, retention and tenure reviews of tenure-track faculty and IAS.

B.4.e.2. providing faculty with information regarding the criteria employed in decisions relative to promotion, retention, tenure, and merit.

B.4.e.3. reviewing portfolios and making recommendations to the SOE Dean on promotion, retention, tenure.

B.4.e.4. developing and implementing policies consistent with those of the university for purposes of post-tenure review.

B.4.e.5. providing a five-year post-tenure review cycle for submission to the SOE Dean.

 

B.4.f. Ad-Hoc Committees
The Department Chair may create temporary committees to accomplish the work of the department not covered by standing committees. Tenured and tenure-track faculty and Instructional Academic Staff with at least an 0.5 FTE serve on ad-hoc committees appointed by the Department Chair.

 

1. Departmental Programmatic Assessment Plan (See VIII.B)

 

1. Additional Departmental Policies

 

D.1 Program Directors

 

D.1.a. Program Directors are nominated by the aligned PLC/Program and appointed by the SOE Dean (in consultation with the Department Chair, and Content Dean where appropriate). In the event of a tie, the SOE dean will cast the deciding vote.

D.1.b.  Program Directors receive 3 credits of reassigned time to fulfill the following roles/responsibilities described on the SOE website (https://www.uwlax.edu/soe/about-us/soe-leadership-team/#tm-program-director-position-description)  :

D.1.c. Program Directors serve a 3-year term.

 

D.1.d. Program Directors are evaluated annually by program membership. The evaluation will be included in the Program Director’s electronic portfolio for the purposes of personnel reviews.

 

D.1.d.1.  A survey will be distributed by the SOE Dean’s office and completed by the program membership. The questions on the survey (Appendix G) are determined/modified by the SOE Leadership Team.

 

D.1.d.2.   SOE Dean completes an evaluation letter in consultation with the DES Chair and shares this letter with the Program Director.

 

D.2.  Program Coordinators: Program Coordinators are appointed by the Department Chair. Program coordinators will receive reassigned time for completion of administrative duties directly related to a program. Duties are determined by the program in consultation with the Department Chair.

 

D.3. Sick leave. Department members will account for sick leave in adherence to the current UW System Guidelines (https://www.wisconsin.edu/uw-policies/uw-system-administrative-policies/sick-leave/ For unclassified staff, 12-month employees garner vacation time but 9-month employees do not.

 

 D.4. Sabbatical Policy: see provost website for updated information on a Sabbatical Application. Before applying for sabbatical, plan on talking to the department chair at least 1-year in advance of planned sabbatical.

1. The department shall maintain an updated sabbatical eligibility list, based on SOE’S definition of eligibility.
2. In April, the department chair will determine how many sabbaticals the department can support in the next round. All eligible applicants will be forwarded information about applying for sabbaticals.
3. All faculty members planning on applying for sabbaticals must express their interest to the department chair by May 15^th.
4. By May 31^st, the department chair will review the list of those expressing interest and decide who may apply, based on the number the department can support and priority (priority will be based on time since previous sabbatical, need, and department’s ability to cover teaching areas). The department chair will communicate the decisions to those who expressed interest.
5. Full sabbatical proposals by approved department members will be submitted to the SoE Dean for feedback at least three weeks prior to the September application deadline posted by SOE. The department chair will write a letter of support.

           

D.5 Online Course Policy

D.5.a. Course Length and Outcomes:

Online courses should be designed with the same student time-commitment as in-person courses.  Online courses should be designed to ensure that students meet the same Student Learning Outcomes as the face-to-face version for that course.

 

D.5.b. Faculty Workload:

D.5.b.1. The workload assigned to an instructor for teaching an online/blended/flipped course should parallel the equivalent of an in-person course. Instructors teaching online courses are expected to provide a full level of service to the department, School of Education/College, and University as appropriate for their FTE appointment. Instructors of online courses must hold regular office hours, which may be online and/or on campus.

D.5.b.2. Faculty/IAS who lead courses online will make necessary arrangements when they need to be absent, as consistent with face-to-face courses.

D.5.b.3. Instructors offering online courses are expected to complete the online teaching training offered by the University or an equivalent prior to teaching a course in an online format. Decisions made relative to what constitutes equivalent preparation and/or experience and/or training will be reviewed by the Department Chair or a designated representative

 

D.6. Salary Equity Policy

UWL utilizes CUPA peer data to benchmark faculty and staff salaries (or UW System matches if CUPA data does not exist). Faculty and IAS salaries are benchmarked by rank and discipline whenever possible. The Faculty Senate Promotion, Tenure and Salary (PTS) committee reviews trends in data regarding equity, inversion and compression and makes recommendations for the disbursement of salary equity funds and/or pay plan (if available). Departments do not have the ability to make equity adjustments and Deans only have a limited ability when guided by PTS/Faculty Senate procedures. Individuals with job offers from another institution should provide the written offer to their chair and Dean for potential consideration of a salary adjustment if approved by the Provost and Vice Chancellor of Administration and Finance. Unless teaching in a fully online program, a full-time instructor with a fully-online schedule must be approved by the Provost.

 

The department will follow hiring procedures prescribed by the university's Office of Human Resources (HR) in conjunction with AAOD and UW System and WI state regulations.

Link to Search and Screen Policy and Procedures: https://kb.uwlax.edu/104752.

Link to UWL’s policies related to Recruitment: https://www.uwlax.edu/human-resources/services/talent-acquisition-and-employment/recruitment/#expand-167510.

Link related to Classification: https://www.uwlax.edu/human-resources/services/classification-and-compensation/classification/

1. Tenure Track Faculty

The approved UWL tenure track faculty recruitment and hiring policy and procedures can be found at https://www.uwlax.edu/human-resources/employees/supervisors/recruitment/.

Additionally, UWL's spousal/partner hiring policy can be found at: https://kb.uwlax.edu/103693

A search and screen committee comprised of tenured faculty, tenure-track faculty, and Instructional Academic Staff with at least an 0.5 FTE appointment will be established for each tenure-track faculty search conducted. The Department Chair appoints the committee. The search and screen committee must be chaired or co-chaired by a tenured faculty member. (See the DES Bylaw Appendices for specific Departmental Search & Screen procedures.)

 

1. Instructional Academic Staff (IAS)

Hiring policy and procedures can be found at https://www.uwlax.edu/human-resources/employees/supervisors/recruitment/ (same for IAS & NIAS).

The search and screen procedures followed for an IAS position are identical to those that are utilized for faculty searches. An IAS search and screen committee must be chaired or co-chaired by a tenured faculty member. The Department Chair appoints the committee.

1. Pool Search

Hiring policy and procedures can be found at https://www.uwlax.edu/human-resources/employees/supervisors/recruitment/.

IAS Pool searches are established to develop a pool of candidates with skills needed to teach various courses that might be hired on a semester basis as IAS.

 

1. Academic Staff

For AS positions search and screen committees are comprised of tenured faculty, tenure-track faculty, AS with at least an 0.75 FTE appointment, and IAS with at least an 0.75 FTE appointment in a department program in which they teach.  The search and screen committee must be chaired or co-chaired by a tenure or tenure-track faculty member. The committee will be established by the Department Chair. Hiring policy and procedures can be found at https://www.uwlax.edu/human-resources/employees/supervisors/recruitment/.

1. Student Course- and Faculty-Related Concerns, Complaints, and Grievances

A.1. Course grade appeals

Students who believe that the grade they received for a course does not reflect their performance in that course may appeal the disputed grade.  This appeal must be initiated within 1 month of the posting of the grade that is being appealed and be completed by the end of the semester immediately following the semester in which the grade was posted.

A.1.a. The student should first discuss this difference with the instructor.

A.1.b. If a student-instructor meeting is not possible, or if such a meeting does not result in a resolution of the difference, the student should contact the department chair to share their concerns. After meeting with the student, the Chair will discuss the student concern with the instructor, if possible.

A.1.c. If the student is not satisfied with the result, the student may file a written appeal for a grade change, with the department Chair with specific evidence that substantiates their claim.

A.1.d. Upon receipt of the written appeal, the Chair will form an ad hoc committee consisting of three department members plus the Chair and the instructor to review the concern.  

A.1.e. The decision of whether to change the course grade rests with the instructor, but is made in consultation with the appeals committee.   If the instructor is not available within the semester time frame, the Chair makes the final decision.

A.2. Incomplete Grades

A student may request an incomplete grade in such situations as outlined in the UWL undergraduate catalog. The student and instructor must sign an agreement indicating how and by what date the incomplete will be made up.

A.3. Student Non-Grade Appeal Complaints to the Chair

Informal Complaints:

If a student has a concern or a complaint about a faculty member or course, the general process for making informal complaints is outlined in steps 1-3 below. Students are welcome to bring a friend or a UWL staff member with them during the following steps. Students who report concerns/complaints/grievances, whether informally or formally, will be protected from retaliation and have the right to expect an investigation and the option to have regular updates on the investigation:

1. The student should speak directly to the instructor.
2. If the student is uncomfortable speaking with the instructor, or they are unsatisfied with the solution, they should go to the chair of the faculty member’s home department.
3. If the student is uncomfortable speaking with the department chair, or the chair is the faculty member in question, or they are unsatisfied with the solution, the student should speak with their college dean.

Depending on the specifics of the student's concern, it may be helpful for them to reach out to additional offices:

• Complaints/concerns/grievances about grades, teaching performance, course requirements, course content, incivility, or professional ethics should follow the process outlined above. Students may also wish to seek support from the Student Life office.
• Complaints/concerns/grievances related to hate/bias and discrimination may follow the process outlined above, and in addition or instead students may contact the Center for Transformative Justice office and/or submit a hate/bias incident report.
• Complaints/concerns/grievances related to sexual misconduct may begin with the process outlined above, but will need to also involve the Equity & Affirmative Action and Violence Prevention offices, and/or the Title IX Team. Students should know that faculty members are mandatory reporters of sexual misconduct, but that confidential resources are available to them.

 Formal Complaints:

If the student is unsatisfied with the solution of their informal complaint, they have the right to file a formal institutional complaint with the Student Life office, as described in the Student Handbook.

1. 4. Grade Appeal Policy and Procedure Policy (approved 10/3/2024 by Faculty Senate)

Enrolled students are afforded an opportunity to seek redress of perceived grievances concerning the assignment of final course grades by instructors. Grievances only will be considered for final course grades and must involve one or more of the following factors. 1. An error was made in grade computation.

1. The grade was based on factors contrary to those stated in the course syllabus or a reasonable interpretation of it.
2. The grade includes a penalty for actions involving the freedom of written or spoken classroom expression.
3. The grade involved a breach of federal or state constitutional protections, laws, Universities of Wisconsin or UW-La Crosse policies.

Preliminary Procedures

• The student must attempt an informal resolution of the problem with the instructor no later than the 10th working day of the next regular semester (Fall/Spring). The instructor may require a written request from the student.
• If the informal process with the instructor does not resolve the problem, the student should communicate, using their UWL email, with the Department Chair within five working days. The Chair may either attempt informal resolution of the problem or inform the student in writing of formal grievance policies within five working days. Communications from this point forward should use all parties’ UWL email accounts.

Formal Procedures

1. Chair Procedures
   • If the Chair decides an informal resolution is inappropriate or unattainable, they should inform the student within five working days the student may request a formal review of the matter by the Department Grade Appeals Committee. This request must be received by the Chair within five working days of the notification of the failure of the attempt at mediation. The student’s petition must be in writing and include the nature of the grievance and its basis from the four factors listed in the “Policy” section above, a brief description of the attempt at informal resolution, the desired outcome the student wishes, and all supporting evidence. The Chair will, within five working days, arrange for the engagement of the committee to hear the student’s appeal.
   • At the same time, the Chair will acknowledge the student’s petition and inform the course instructor. If the instructor, upon seeing the petition, wishes to respond, this must be done within five working days.
   • Upon receipt of the student’s petition and the potential response from the instructor, the Chair will convene the committee within five working days and deliver all written documents concerning the case, including a written account of the Chair’s attempt at mediation, if applicable.
2. Grade Appeals Committee
   • [Insert department composition/selection of a grade appeals committee].
   • The committee will review the materials presented, including the student petition and other evidence provided by the instructor or Chair. It may ask for clarifying information from either the student or the instructor via written inquiry and may call for an oral presentation from either. Each person will be given an opportunity to respond if further evidence is presented to the committee.
   • Following review and consideration of the evidence, the committee will render a formal recommendation and communicate that recommendation to the Chair and the instructor within ten days of the committee’s first meeting. The report will include the committee’s findings of fact, its recommendation, and its rationale for the recommendation.
   • Unless they are no longer a UWL instructor, the course instructor retains the right to accept or reject the recommendations of the Department Grade Appeals Committee. If the instructor is no longer a UWL instructor, the Chair (or their designee) will assume the instructor’s role. The instructor’s decision at the end of this process will be considered final with no further appeal possible.
3. Further Action
   • Grievances related to course grades cannot be appealed except through the instructor and the department procedures described above. The assignment of final course grades involves the professional judgment of qualified instructors in a particular field of study. Administrative officers at the College or University level are assumed to not have relevant academic expertise and bear no responsibility for the determination of course grades.
   • If the student believes the grade appeal process, stated in the by-laws, was not appropriately followed they can pursue a grievance through the Office of Student Life. However, an appeal to the Office of Student Life cannot involve the department or instructor’s decision on the grade.

Conditions

• At all review levels the burden of proof is the student’s responsibility.
• The term “working days” refers to days when classes are scheduled.
• Grievance petitions must be individually filed.

For 3 – The language is standard for all departments (10/2024) except each department must indicate the composition of the grade appeal committee indicated in 3.2 above. As some departments already have an appeals committee structure, the information should be included above.

A.5. Graduation without certification

A.5.a Students with extenuating circumstances may petition for permission to waive program requirements for student teaching and to graduate without certification. 

A.5.b Students must have completed 120 credits required for graduation. In addition, students must have completed all other program requirements with the exception of student teaching. Meeting this requirement does not guarantee approval of the request.

A.5.c. The procedure for consideration of this request is as follows: 

A.5.c.i  The student must meet with their academic advisor and with the SOE Certification Officer to discuss their request for a waiver and to ensure that the student fully understands the implications of this decision. 

A.5.c.ii The academic advisor then consults with the program faculty and staff and forwards their recommendation to the Department Chair.

A.5.c.iii The Department Chair reviews the request and after consultation with the Program Director, forwards a recommendation to the SOE Dean.

A.5.c.iv. The student will be informed of the decision in writing.

A.5.d. If the student decides to return at a later date to complete their student teaching, they are readmitted under the most current catalog and are required to complete any additional coursework or testing requirements that may have been implemented since their graduation.

1. Expectations, Responsibilities, and Academic Misconduct

Faculty and staff are expected to report academic misconduct per Chapter 14 of the UW System code. The Office of Student Life Office provides guidance and assistance. Academic and non-academic misconduct policies are referenced in the student handbook:
https://www.uwlax.edu/student-life/student-resources/student-handbook/

1. Academic Advising

The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) mandates that faculty provide individual academic and professional advising to students as outlined in PI 34.016. Each student majoring in teacher education in DES is assigned a DES faculty advisor. Students are required to meet with their academic advisor at least once each semester to discuss their academic progress, career interests, and course schedule. Students are not able to register for the following semester courses until they have met with their academic advisor. Students are responsible for knowing their requirements for graduation and monitoring their progress to degree completion. Questions or concerns about degree requirements should be directed to their academic advisor and/or SOE Teacher Certification Officer.

 

1. Changing major and application for admission to SoE:

D.1. Students who change majors between ECE (previously ECMC) and EME (previously MCEA) do not need to reapply for admission to the School of Education.

D.2. Students who change majors between any other teacher education major will need to reapply for admission to the new declared major.

 

Appendix A: Statement of Teaching in the Department of Educational Studies

Teaching is the primary focus for individuals in tenure track and instructional academic staff positions in DES. DES faculty and staff pursue this aim within the context of guiding teacher candidates who intend to become teachers capable of supporting all students' learning. Thus, DES faculty implement good teaching practices with the goal of supporting teacher candidates as they acquire content knowledge, skill, and disposition awareness. This includes incorporating innovative teaching techniques that are relevant to the PK-12 setting, for example integration of relevant technology, making connections between theory and practice in the classroom, and implementing social justice pedagogy for all learners.  This may also include modeling activities that PK-12 students would perform in their classrooms as a vehicle for discussing inclusive pedagogical applications. 

Minimum expectations for teaching activities:

Faculty are expected to set well-defined expectations, distribute syllabi (in electronic or paper format), stay current in their field (including aligning objectives with content standards), return assignments and communicate with students in a timely manner, hold regular office hours, implement the approved course curriculum, and maintain an appropriate professional disposition.

Teaching in EDS:

Effective Teaching:

For merit review and retention, tenure, and promotion decisions, faculty are expected to demonstrate effective teaching and should provide evaluative evidence in their portfolio that aligns in accordance with JPC guidelines and substantiates teaching effectiveness.  The extent of the evidence provided will vary with the level of review. Types of evidence documenting effective teaching may include, but is not limited to: 

• Self-assessment of teaching. This assessment may take the form of a narrative which addresses a teaching philosophy and statement of personal growth, course expectations, grading methodology, and other methods used for self-assessment.  Any self-assessment should also articulate how to include responses to direct and indirect assessment, and how outcomes inform teaching practices and impact student learning.
• Peer evaluation of teaching. Faculty and IAS should seek input from DES, and/or other SoE colleagues, and/or other PK-12 colleagues related to their teaching effectiveness. Probationary faculty, faculty undergoing post-tenure review, and IAS will undergo Peer Evaluations based on classroom visitations by other faculty.
• Student evaluation of the learning environment (see section III.D of the bylaws): Student evaluations given in each of the courses taught will also be used as one measure to judge teaching effectiveness. LENS results from the Faculty Senate approved LENS questions are required for retention, tenure, and promotion.  Please note. UWL's approach for gathering student feedback on instruction changed in the fall of 2023. As such, during the transition years, contract, non-contract, and promotion meetings will include two types of student evaluation systems: Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEI) and LENS (previously defined).

Additional Teaching Contributions:

Faculty and Instructional Academic Staff (IAS) often make additional teaching contributions outside of the classroom.  The Department of Educational Studies highly values these contributions, which can take many forms, including, but not limited to:

• Course/curriculum development/revision/innovation
• Course/curriculum grants and/or teaching materials/assessments
• Professional development related to teaching and/or licensure
• Non-credit instruction
• Field and/or student teaching supervision
• Professional Development School (PDS) leadership and/or development

Candidates for merit, retention, tenure, promotion, or post-tenure review should provide evidence indicating the scope and impact of these types of contributions.

Statement on Grading:

Grading student performance in EDS involves assessing mastery. Faculty are responsible for determining if teacher candidates (“TCs”) are proficient in all areas of teaching. TCs must master planning, implementation of instructional practices and assessment of student learning in order to progress. Through this process, faculty provide substantial feedback that is used by TCs to continually revise and expand their work to meet proficiency standards. Therefore, grades are typically high (typically As and Bs) because assessment is an iterative process that leads students to mastery. It is important for reviewers of faculty portfolios to appreciate mastery grading when reviewing EDS course grade distributions.

 

Field and Student Teaching Supervision Assignments:

Faculty and IAS who supervise teacher candidates (TC’s) in field placements or student teaching settings as part of their workload assignment are expected to perform the duties required, including observing TC’s  in the field, meeting with cooperating teachers and TC’s , supporting TC’s with portfolio assembly, submission, and evaluation as needed, and submitting required documentation to the School of Education, Professional and Continuing Education (hereafter referred to as SoE) in a timely manner.

 

The following aspects of field and student teaching supervision should be taken into account when evaluating faculty teaching workload and performance.

• Observations of teacher candidates (TCs) during their field or student teaching placements is required and should be performed in line with DES and SoE Office of Field Experience expectations.
• Triad conferences between each teacher candidate, university supervisor (DES faculty/IAS) and cooperating teacher are also required in both field and student teaching settings, and should be performed in line with DES and SoE Office of Field Experience expectations.
• Documentation responsibilities include completing observation reports using appropriate reporting tools, which are ultimately compiled by the faculty member into common assessment documents (SIPs) as outlined by DES and SoE. These should be performed in line with DES and SoE Office of Field Experience expectations.
• Support and evaluation of pre-student teaching and student teaching portfolios is expected of faculty with Field II and Student Teaching Seminar assignments. For pre-student teaching portfolios, faculty are expected to provide feedback and evaluate a mini-version of the required teacher performance assessment (edTPA) portfolio. For student teaching portfolios (prepared during student teaching placements), faculty are expected to provide ongoing support, clarification, and technical assistance as the TCs prepare and upload their required teacher performance assessment (edTPA) portfolio.

 

 

Professional Development Schools (PDS)

Professional Development Schools (PDS) are schools that have joined with UWL  to accomplish educational goals that are mutually beneficial to each. A PDS is a collaboratively planned and implemented partnership for the academic and clinical preparation of teacher candidates and the continuous professional development of teachers. The design of a PDS partnership is based on outcomes for the PreK-12 students in the school with collaborative staff development and pre-service teacher preparation centered on those outcomes.  At a PDS, University courses are often held within the school context.  These schools are clinical sites where cohorts of teacher candidates participate in structured learning experiences as part of their professional education programs.

At PDS sites, there is a formal agreement between the University of Wisconsin La Crosse and the School Districts of La Crosse and surrounding areas.  These agreements include the following purposes:

• Exemplary instruction and other educational experiences for PK-12 students
• Preparation of teachers and other school-based educators
• Professional development of teachers and other school-based educators
• Applied inquiry designed to improve practice

 

The amount of effort and expertise involved in the formation and upkeep of PDS relationships is significant, and DES faculty who serve as PDS liaisons are allocated workload credits above the course credits to reflect these responsibilities.

 

 

Appendix B: Statement of Scholarship in the Department of Educational Studies

Faculty in DES are expected to develop and maintain an active program of scholarship. Scholarship activity in the DES reflects the faculty’s role in teacher preparation, which is to provide instruction to undergraduate and graduate candidates in curriculum development, teaching methods and assessment that is relevant to pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, elementary, middle level and secondary school settings, and is based on current research and theory from a variety of disciplines and fields of study.

Minimal Expectations for Scholarship:

Faculty members are expected to be actively engaged in scholarship. This could involve collecting and/or analyzing data, writing articles and/or grants, presenting, reviewing, and/or publishing results.  Active engagement will take different forms depending on the individual and their area of scholarship.

Scholarship in DES:

The department’s definition of scholarship reflects its commitment to a teacher education program that is field-based and is dedicated to developing reflective practitioners. Faculty may engage in content-focused research in their discipline, and/or they may engage in self-study or use other rigorous research methods to carefully examine their own instruction.  Both types of scholarship ultimately result in the dissemination of findings.  Grants that focus on the act of teaching and/or instructional methods should be considered scholarly products.  Curricular redesign grants or those funding the development of courses would not be considered scholarship, unless there are research findings that are rigorously collected and then disseminated.

Specific examples of scholarly activities and products include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Publishing original works such as journal articles, manuals, textbooks, book reviews, etc.
• Presenting creative and/or original research or curriculum development by means of lectures, paper presentations, or seminar presentations given at various professional meetings, conventions, conferences, or at other colleges and universities
• Applying for and/or receiving grants and awards in support of the scholarly activity (e.g., sabbatical)
• Refereeing and reviewing original research manuscripts, grants, and conference proposals
• Serving as an editor for a peer-reviewed journal or other similar forums
• Attending conferences or symposia in support of scholarly development
• Conducting research (including collecting & analyzing data, writing manuscripts, etc)
• Mentoring undergraduate or graduate research students

 

Faculty are expected to report their scholarly activities and accomplishments on an ongoing basis in their Digital Measures database.  Contributions are generally viewed as having a higher impact when subject to peer review.  Narratives describing scholarly activity should contextualize the strength and audience of the journal(s) in which they are publishing when they submit their materials for review.

The Department of Educational Studies values many levels of engagement in scholarship.  Benchmarks for retention, tenure, promotion, and post-tenure review are articulated in the body of these bylaws. A guide to the level of impact of different scholarly activities and products is given below:

 

Primary Areas of Impact are those that are highly competitive and subject to rigorous peer review by individuals or organizations external to the University. These activities include, but are not limited to:

• Publication in a peer-reviewed forum, with contextualization of the forum and its impact
• Publication of textbooks, manuals, curriculum guides, books, or book chapters
• Editor or Co-Editor of peer-reviewed journal or book
• Keynote or invited speaker at national or international conferences
• Peer-reviewed research presentation for a national or international audience
• Principal or Co-Principal Investigator for an external grant (Public or Private funding) that is related to education or has an education component

Secondary Areas of Impact are those that are subject to less rigorous peer review by individuals or organizations external to the University or to review by peers at the University. These activities include, but are not limited to:

• Publication in a non-peer-reviewed forum, with contextualization of the forum and its impact
• Keynote or invited speaker at a local, regional or state conference
• Session leader at a conference/webinar
• Peer-reviewed poster or paper presentation for a regional or local audience
• Principal or Co-Principal Investigator for an internal grant at the System or University-Wide level that is related to education or has an education component (e.g., sabbatical)

Tertiary Areas of Impact are those that are not subject to external peer review. These activities include, but are not limited to:

• Reviews of books, articles or conference proposals
• Non-peer reviewed presentations at local conferences
• Peer-reviewed poster or paper presentations at an internal conference
• Principal or Co-Principal Investigator for an internal grant at the School of Education, Professional and Continuing, College, or Department/Program level that is related to education or has an education component
• Revising manuscripts based on peer-review feedback
• Serving as a Supporting Author on a grant
• Mentoring undergraduate or graduate research students
• Attending conferences or symposia in support of scholarly development
• Conducting research (including collecting & analyzing data, writing manuscripts, applying for grants, etc.)

Appendix C: Statement of Service in the Department of Educational Studies

DES uses the following definitions, which are aligned with JPC guidelines (http://www.uwlax.edu/uploadedFiles/Offices-Services/Human_Resources/Faculty-Promotion-Guide%20.pdf (2013).

• University service includes activities such as doing department, college, and University committee work. Evidence that service activities have been particularly valuable to the discipline, University or the community serves to strengthen a service portfolio.
• Professional/Community service involves the use of professional expertise in a service activity that may be internal or external to the University. These types of activities may include contributions such as:
• Making an active contribution to a professional society
• Organization of lecture series, institutes, workshops etceteras
• Provision of in-service training
• Consulting and advising in a professional capacity
• Providing lectures or workshops
• Assisting colleagues with research design and statistical analysis
• Evaluating a program for an external agency

Performance of community service unrelated to the candidate’s expertise as a University faculty/staff member is certainly worthwhile and reflects well on the University, but such community service is generally not given as much weight as Professional or University service.

Minimal Expectations for Service:

Faculty members are expected to provide service to the Department, School, University, and/or the Profession.  Faculty are expected to participate in service activities at lower levels of responsibility  and/or leadership at earlier career stages, and increase their level of responsibility as they progress through their careers. 

Service in DES:

DES values many different types of service.  Faculty are expected to be actively engaged in their service activities at all career levels and to provide supportive evidence in their portfolio of the level of responsibility and impact of their service contributions.  The evidence provided will vary with the level of review.  Types of supporting evidence may include but are not limited to: 

• Self-assessment of service contributions (in a narrative statement)
• Peer letter(s) of support. Faculty and IAS are encouraged to seek input from internal and/or external colleagues related to the extent and impact of their service involvements.

The following listing is not intended to be prescriptive, but rather a more general guide to the levels of different service activities.  It is certainly possible for an activity listed in one category to have a different level of impact or responsibility.  Likewise, faculty and IAS are not expected to have service activities in each category.  It is incumbent upon the faculty or IAS member to articulate and contextualize the impact and extent of their service activities.

Category A - may include service activities associated with a high level of responsibility and impact. 

• Program Directorship
• Chairing SoE, Faculty Senate, Search & Screen, or Program level committees
• Taking a leadership role in professional outreach, professional development, or professional organization
• Serving on state and/or national educational organizations
• Creating and organizing novel symposia, workshops, and short courses designed to bring current information and/or techniques to members of the education community
• Developing PK-12 partnerships such as Professional Development Schools (PDS)
• Serving as a Professional Development Plan (PDP) reviewer
  
  

Category B - may include activities associated with a moderate level of responsibility or impact.

• Serving on SoE or Departmental accreditation, curriculum, and program assessment committees (alignment with edTPA, DPI, state standards, annual reports, student support sessions)
• SoE Task Force committees membership
• Faculty Senate committee membership
• Serving on a Search & Screen committee
• Participating in ongoing collaboration with PK-12 partnerships (e.g., PDS liaison)
• Serving on local educational organization boards, committees, etcetera
• Presenting or participating in service grants with teachers or the broader educational community
• Service presentations at local and national conferences - Presentations related to “service” should relate to supporting learner growth and development (PK-12 or 12+ focus)
• Organizing or developing community events that contribute to student learning
• Serving on professional association committees
• Academic Advising (depending on the number of advisees)
  
  

Category C -  may include activities associated with less responsibility or impact.

• Serving on Program committees (STEP, ECE (previously ECMC), etc.) or SoE meetings that are above the department level (parallel to departmental meetings)
• Serving on SoE Ad Hoc committees (parallel to college committees)
• Academic Advising (depending on the level of number of advisees)
• Volunteering in a professional capacity at local schools or agencies
• Providing consultation for individuals at local schools or agencies
• Leading mini-PD workshops at UWL (i.e., Tech Session)
• Serving on local school boards, district committees, and/or board of directors for non-profit

 

Appendix D: Overall Merit Scores & Merit Evaluation (Annual Review)

The results of merit reviews for all ranked faculty who have completed at least one academic year at UWL are due to the Dean's Office on October 1 annually. Merit reviews reflect activities during the prior academic year ending May 31. (2016 UWL Bylaws template)

 

Merit Scoring Categories: The following categories are used to classify the performance of each faculty and instructional academic staff member in each of the Merit Scoring Areas (as defined in IV.A.8).

E        Exceeds expectations

M        Meets expectations

DM     Does not Meet expectations - submission of this score requires an accompanying explanation from each scorer.

Teaching: Minimal expectations - Statement on Teaching, the minimal expectations of a faculty or IAS member in Teaching are:  setting well-defined expectations, distributing syllabi (in electronic or paper format), staying current in their field (including aligning objectives with content standards), returning assignments and communicating with students in a timely manner, holding regular office hours, implementing the approved course curriculum, and maintaining an appropriate professional disposition. A Merit score of “DM” in Teaching may be indicated by the following evidence, but is not limited to: failure to meet the minimal expectations for Teaching. 

A Merit score of “M” in Teaching may be indicated by the following evidence, but is not limited to:

• Indicators across multiple courses and/or semesters that suggest that the instructor is struggling with providing excellent instruction (e.g., a preponderance of student comments/SEI scores that highlight ineffective teaching practices or communication of content.)
• Documented evidence that the instructor may be struggling with positive teacher-student relationships (e.g., a preponderance of student comments on SEIs, or substantiated communications to the Department Chair or PLC director.)

Peer observation letters that indicate the instructor has provided sufficient but not excellent instruction.

Evidence that the instructor is not being self-reflective or contextualizing teaching evidence in their Merit narrative.

A Merit scores of “E” in Teaching may be indicated by a body of evidence that includes positive and/or contextualized student evaluations, positive peer evaluations, and a self-reflective Merit narrative.

Scholarship:  Minimal expectations - As are articulated in Appendix B. Details on merit scoring for scholarship are in Appendix E. : Statement on Scholarship, Faculty members are expected to be actively engaged in scholarship. This could involve collecting and/or analyzing data, writing articles and/or grants, presenting, reviewing, and/or publishing results.  Active engagement will take different forms depending on the individual and their area of scholarship. Thus, Faculty are encouraged to articulate their activities in their Merit narrative. A Merit score of “DM” in Scholarship may be indicated by the following evidence, but is not limited to failure to meet the minimal expectations for Scholarship. 

A Merit score of “M” in Scholarship may be indicated by the following evidence, but is not limited to:

• Actively engaged in scholarship, but no submitted or accepted scholarly products (grants, publications).

Actively engaged in scholarship, but all activities reported fall within the “Tertiary Areas of Impact ” category (see Appendix B). This criterion should be only applied to faculty members who are at the Associate or Full Professor rank. 

A Merit score of “M” or “E” in Scholarship may be indicated for Faculty who are actively engaged in Scholarship, and who have one or more scholarly products submitted or accepted/funded.  A score of “E” versus “M” should be supported by evidence in the candidate’s portfolio and by their Merit narrative. 

Service:  Minimal expectations - As are articulated in Appendix C.: Statement on Service, Faculty members are expected to provide service to the Department, School, University, and the Profession. Faculty are expected to participate in service activities at lower levels of engagement and/or leadership at earlier career stages, and increase their involvement as they progress through their careers.  Minimal expectations of Faculty and IAS for Service are articulated in Appendix C. A Merit score of “DM” in Service may be indicated by the following evidence, but is not limited to failure to meet the minimal expectations for Service.  For Faculty at the Full Professor rank, failure to make service contributions outside of Category C as outlined in Appendix C: Statement of Service.

A Merit score of “M” or “E” in Service may be indicated for Faculty or IAS who are actively engaged in Service. The Merit score should be supported by evidence in the candidate’s portfolio and by their Merit narrative, with consideration for the level of impact of the service activities and the candidate’s rank and level of experience.
 

Merit Scoring Procedures

Meetings of the Merit Review Committees: The Merit Review Committees will meet to discuss the portfolio and pre-score table for each DES member assigned to their committee. Particular attention should be paid to cases with a broad distribution of pre-scores. 

Meetings of the Merit Review Committees will be held in closed session in accord with WI Chapter 19.85(1)(c).

Scoring: Based on the discussion at the appropriate Merit Review Committee meeting, committee members will submit scores in all appropriate areas for each eligible DES member (defined in IV.A.1 and IV.A.2).  Scores must be submitted using an electronic survey within 7 calendar days of the meeting of the Merit Review Committee on which they are a member.

Each Merit Committee will provide a summary of comments to the Chair on Teaching, Scholarship, and Service for each reviewee based on the discussion at the Merit Review Committee Meeting.

After the close of the final score survey, the Department Chair, working with a final October 1 distribution deadline, sorts the Final Area Scores from high to low in each area Category for each eligible DES member, and compiles the Final Area Scores into Merit Categories using the rubric in IV.A.10.b to create a Final Merit Table. This table and the (anonymized) submitted comments are combined into a summary report letter for each eligible DES member. 

 

Reporting out to Department and Dean 

The Department Chair disseminates the summary report letter consisting of the Scoring Table and anonymized comments to each eligible DES member by Oct. 1. The Department Chair notifies the DES PRT Committee of all Merit scores by Oct. 1. Prior to Oct. 31, faculty members within DES may request the PRT Committee to convene in order to discuss the faculty member's Merit scores and to identify a support plan. The Department Chair will submit the results of the final Merit scores to the Dean in accord with the timeline set forward by the Office of the Provost.

Distribution of Merit Funds

Definitions:

• The distribution model is based on a discretionary pay plan of P%.
• The total salary of all tenure-track faculty in the department is denoted
• The total number of tenure-track faculty in the department is denoted N_F.
• The total salary of all instructional academic staff in the department is denoted
• The total number of instructional academic staff in the department is denoted N_S.
• The salary of a particular faculty or instructional academic staff member is denoted X_i.
• The total dollars in the faculty discretionary salary pool (T_F) and total dollars in the instructional academic staff discretionary salary pool (T_S) are given by equations (1) and (2):
•                 (2)    

Implementation: The distribution of salary dollars according to the methods in this section will be implemented when there is an available pay plan of P=2% or greater.

Phase 1: All faculty and instructional academic staff who earn an overall Merit Category rating of Satisfactory or greater will receive an equal salary increase, determined by dividing half of their respective total discretionary dollars equally (equations (3) and (4)). This flat increase will in most cases account for half of the total discretionary salary pool (T_F/2 for faculty, T_S/2 for IAS).

(3)           (4) 

Phase 2: All faculty and instructional academic staff who earn an overall Merit Category rating of Satisfactory or greater will receive an additional salary increase that is based on their overall Merit Category rating as follows.

Each Overall Merit Category rating will be associated with a weighting factor m_i :

                    E (Exceeds expectations)                      m_i = 2.0

                    M (Meets expectations)                          m_i = 1.0

        DM (Does not meet expectations)         m_i = 0

 

A weighted sum W will be calculated separately for Faculty and for IAS using equations (5) and (6):

(5)                               (6)

 

The Phase 2 salary increase is then determined using the merit weighting factor as in equations (7) and (8):

(7)          (8) 

 

Appendix E

SoE Program Director Evaluation

1. When thinking about your program director, to what extent would you agree with the following statements
   (5-point scale - strongly agree/strongly disagree)

Question	Alignment with PD roles/ responsibilities (see section IX.B.1)
1.   Advances the program toward agreed upon goals.	4, 5, 6
2.   Invites the opinion of program members before making decisions.
3.   Makes data-driven decisions that are in the best interest of the whole program.
4.   Facilitates open and professional communication amongst program members and a free exchange of ideas.
5.   Fosters positive morale and addresses conflicts when they arise.
6.   Attends to essential administrative tasks of the position.	1, 2, 3, 10
7.   Has vision and awareness of future trends in the discipline, and guides the PLC in developing a sound long-range plan to carry out program goals	6
9.   Guides the PLC in monitoring student progress, and ensuring that students are adequately prepared for benchmark assessments and licensure standards	11, 12
10. Oversees Advisory Council by maintaining representative constituency, setting an agenda for regular meetings, and posting meeting minutes	10
11. Shares information and updates with PLC members from biweekly SoEL meetings and other meetings with the Chair and/or Dean(s)	7, 8

 

1. My program director is an effective leader:

5 = Strongly agree – they appear to be doing an outstanding job as program director

4 = Agree – they appear to be doing a good job as program director

3 = Neutral – they appear to be doing an adequate job as program director  

2 = Disagree – they appear to be doing a weak job as program director

1 = Strongly disagree – they appear to be doing a poor job as program director

 

1. Please provide any additional feedback in response to the questions below. (Open text answers)

1. What are the program director’s particular areas of effectiveness?  
2. What are the program director’s particular areas for improvement?
3. The program director is effective in helping me reach my goals by …
4. It would be helpful if the program director would ….