Georgia abolishes tenure.

[mahagonny]

We are the era which will effectively end higher ed as we know it.

We should just go business and engineering and hourly wages.

Been hearing this for thirty years. It's the kind of statement that fortifies the status quo.

[histchick]

Based on that article, Georgia hasn't abolished tenure. They've updated the post-tenure review policy. Their updates weaken tenure protections, since two consecutive unsatisfactory post-tenure reviews are cause for termination, but tenure still exists.

You're right, vkw. The BOR isn't abolishing tenure, though it's definitely a slippery slope.  Added to the mix is the tension over adding "student success" as a component to faculty evaluations, where previously they were evaluated on teaching, research/scholarship, and service. 

Individual institutions in the state "should" have a great deal of control over how to implement these policies, though we'll believe it when we see it.     

[mahagonny]

Based on that article, Georgia hasn't abolished tenure. They've updated the post-tenure review policy. Their updates weaken tenure protections, since two consecutive unsatisfactory post-tenure reviews are cause for termination, but tenure still exists.

You're right, vkw. The BOR isn't abolishing tenure, though it's definitely a slippery slope.  Added to the mix is the tension over adding "student success" as a component to faculty evaluations, where previously they were evaluated on teaching, research/scholarship, and service. 

Individual institutions in the state "should" have a great deal of control over how to implement these policies, though we'll believe it when we see it.     

The question 'should an individual who's been hired to teach be allowed to continue if his student evaluations are consistently bad' is already answered in the negative, since half or more undergraduate teaching is done by adjunct faculty. So keeping tenure without a provision that students succeed is just sorting faculty into two categories, the accountable and the exempt. If one believes student evaluations, which my school clearly does.

[marshwiggle]

The BOR isn't abolishing tenure, though it's definitely a slippery slope.  Added to the mix is the tension over adding "student success" as a component to faculty evaluations, where previously they were evaluated on teaching, research/scholarship, and service. 

If we're honest, without having to fall back to the "evil administration" trope, we know there's something legitimate that is part of what's being called "student success".

As this is a faculty driven process, Im not sure really how easy or hard it would be to recommend a development plan unless it was truly a case where tenure should be revoked.  ((To remove the ROAD Scholars.... Retired On Active Duty))

We ALL know examples of these ROADS Scholars, as described above. As long as we can still identify them, the system as is isn't doing a sufficient job of dealing with them. To the extent that tenure is seen to be part of that, it's going to be an easy target.

[Ruralguy]

These are good points.

I actually think we need to be considering student outcomes more explicitly in faculty evaluation. It matters that someone has a 40 year career with an average  student load of 5 per class when their colleagues have averages several times higher. I am not talking about someone who teaches full small classes for upper level majors.
It matters if half the class fails or everybody gets As (there are good explanations for either, but of a common occurrence across time and level..).

Also, post tenure review only matters if T and P can make specific recommendations, including dismissal (although, like any other such recommendation, there should be an appeals process, etc.).

[mahagonny]

Tangential question: is tenure contributing to a dearth of diversity? I suspect it is, and also that that's one reason the Republicans in government aren't better friends to higher education funding.

Anecdotally, some report keeping quiet about their politically conservative selves or their deep Christian faith, particularly African Americans (statistically more religious and church going than whites) until after they receive tenure. That's a long time to wait. Alternatively, do something else for a living.

I'm not saying people are routinely denied tenure for being religious or conservative. But there's a social component to being welcome and fitting in.

What to do about the 'ROAD' scholar isn't easy to solve if he has a light schedule because they just don't have that much for him to do. Or how about when he's just not getting along great with colleagues and they'd rather do it themselves than have him on the committee.

[Ruralguy]

We make people like that teach more sections due to self created light loads (which might be punishing students!), and then they get *appointed* by the Dean to
committee appointment positions where they won't do harm if they show up or if they don't.

[Golazo]

Darn, I thought it was an honor that the dean asked me to serve on the backup parking appeals committee...

[Ruralguy]

Well, Golazo, at least your Dean thinks you won't do any harm. Then again, he might hope you're gone in two years.

[mleok]

Maybe so, but returning to the GA scenario: why would a professor who is so good you need to compete with other employers to get him interested in joining the faculty at your school, be worried about a more stringent post-tenure review that includes student success as a criterion?
The slogan 'they're not going to be able to attract good talent now' sounds to me more like standard union speak.

Let's be honest, the competition for star faculty is rarely based on their teaching, rather it's based on their research and their ability to attract grant funding. In any case, what does "student success" even mean? Is it measured by grades in the class in question, in classes that build upon the class taken, by some measure of value added over the baseline expectation? Even for an extraordinary teacher, ensuring student success is impossible with some measure of buy-in from the students, and an adequate level of academic preparation. It doesn't really make sense to penalize a faculty member for a lack of student success without taking into account such factors, but it is precisely the ambiguity of the term which makes it offputting to a faculty member with options.

[mahagonny]

Maybe so, but returning to the GA scenario: why would a professor who is so good you need to compete with other employers to get him interested in joining the faculty at your school, be worried about a more stringent post-tenure review that includes student success as a criterion?
The slogan 'they're not going to be able to attract good talent now' sounds to me more like standard union speak.

Let's be honest, the competition for star faculty is rarely based on their teaching, rather it's based on their research and their ability to attract grant funding. In any case, what does "student success" even mean? Is it measured by grades in the class in question, in classes that build upon the class taken, by some measure of value added over the baseline expectation? Even for an extraordinary teacher, ensuring student success is impossible with some measure of buy-in from the students, and an adequate level of academic preparation. It doesn't really make sense to penalize a faculty member for a lack of student success without taking into account such factors, but it is precisely the ambiguity of the term which makes it offputting to a faculty member with options.

OK, then...you are in favor of abolishing student evaluations of faculty performance across the board, because they don't measure anything that's important to know; what a big waste of time. Because your statement applies to adjunct faculty too. We certainly have other options. I could teach at another school. And I don't think that adjunct unions would give you any resistance. I might appreciate the option to say 'those two students who complained to the chair about my teaching are just unhappy that my standards are appropriately high for college level work and my grading is not inflated.' An explanation that, I maintain, would be supported by the content of my publications and the reputations of the people who endorse them.
ETA: Not trying to give you a manifesto here. I'm perfectly common among other adjunct faculty.

[mleok]

Maybe so, but returning to the GA scenario: why would a professor who is so good you need to compete with other employers to get him interested in joining the faculty at your school, be worried about a more stringent post-tenure review that includes student success as a criterion?
The slogan 'they're not going to be able to attract good talent now' sounds to me more like standard union speak.

Let's be honest, the competition for star faculty is rarely based on their teaching, rather it's based on their research and their ability to attract grant funding. In any case, what does "student success" even mean? Is it measured by grades in the class in question, in classes that build upon the class taken, by some measure of value added over the baseline expectation? Even for an extraordinary teacher, ensuring student success is impossible with some measure of buy-in from the students, and an adequate level of academic preparation. It doesn't really make sense to penalize a faculty member for a lack of student success without taking into account such factors, but it is precisely the ambiguity of the term which makes it offputting to a faculty member with options.

OK, then...you are in favor of abolishing student evaluations of faculty performance across the board, because they don't measure anything that's important to know; what a big waste of time. Because your statement applies to adjunct faculty too. We certainly have other options. I could teach at another school. And I don't think that adjunct unions would give you any resistance. I might appreciate the option to say 'those two students who complained to the chair about my teaching are just unhappy that my standards are appropriately high for college level work and my grading is not inflated.' An explanation that, I maintain, would be supported by the content of my publications and the reputations of the people who endorse them.
ETA: Not trying to give you a manifesto here. I'm perfectly common among other adjunct faculty.

For what it's worth, my university is moving away from relying upon student evaluations to evaluate teaching, because of the opportunity for bias and the ability to skew it by being an easy grader. I would have no issue using the same standards for evaluating teaching effectiveness for both our tenure-track and adjunct faculty. At least in my department, we do not have any long term adjuncts, and most non-tenure-track teaching, with the exception of our teaching professor track (which can earn the equivalent of tenure), is tied in with our research mission, so there is teaching done by graduate students, postdocs, and visitors on sabbatical, but not anyone who does this on an ongoing basis.

[marshwiggle]

For what it's worth, my university is moving away from relying upon student evaluations to evaluate teaching, because of the opportunity for bias and the ability to skew it by being an easy grader.

I don't recall if it was here or on the previous fora, but I mentioned that I did an analysis of all of the RMP ratings for my university. Since RMP rated "easiness" and "quality", I did a regression. There was a clear correlation, as expected. However, using that correlation made it possible to distinguish profs whose "quality" rating was higher than predicted by their "easiness" rating from those whose quality rating was lower than predicted by their "easiness" rating.

IIRC, for my institution about 40% were "above" expected quality; 35% were about as expected, and 25% were "below" expected quality. (I believe I considered one std. error of the slope and y-intercept above and below to define the "expected" range.)

The point is, in principle, easy grading isn't too hard to correct for.

[mleok]

For what it's worth, my university is moving away from relying upon student evaluations to evaluate teaching, because of the opportunity for bias and the ability to skew it by being an easy grader.

I don't recall if it was here or on the previous fora, but I mentioned that I did an analysis of all of the RMP ratings for my university. Since RMP rated "easiness" and "quality", I did a regression. There was a clear correlation, as expected. However, using that correlation made it possible to distinguish profs whose "quality" rating was higher than predicted by their "easiness" rating from those whose quality rating was lower than predicted by their "easiness" rating.

IIRC, for my institution about 40% were "above" expected quality; 35% were about as expected, and 25% were "below" expected quality. (I believe I considered one std. error of the slope and y-intercept above and below to define the "expected" range.)

The point is, in principle, easy grading isn't too hard to correct for.

Yes, but there are multiple confounding factors, including the type of class (elective vs. required in major vs. gen ed.), ease of grading, gender, ethnicity, even the time of the class, and which quarter it's offered (on cycle vs. off cycle), and with each additional factor, it becomes increasingly hard to establish an "expected" rating, and try to distinguish between faculty based on their "value added."

[marshwiggle]

For what it's worth, my university is moving away from relying upon student evaluations to evaluate teaching, because of the opportunity for bias and the ability to skew it by being an easy grader.

I don't recall if it was here or on the previous fora, but I mentioned that I did an analysis of all of the RMP ratings for my university. Since RMP rated "easiness" and "quality", I did a regression. There was a clear correlation, as expected. However, using that correlation made it possible to distinguish profs whose "quality" rating was higher than predicted by their "easiness" rating from those whose quality rating was lower than predicted by their "easiness" rating.

IIRC, for my institution about 40% were "above" expected quality; 35% were about as expected, and 25% were "below" expected quality. (I believe I considered one std. error of the slope and y-intercept above and below to define the "expected" range.)

The point is, in principle, easy grading isn't too hard to correct for.

Yes, but there are multiple confounding factors, including the type of class (elective vs. required in major vs. gen ed.), ease of grading, gender, ethnicity, even the time of the class, and which quarter it's offered (on cycle vs. off cycle), and with each additional factor, it becomes increasingly hard to establish an "expected" rating, and try to distinguish between faculty based on their "value added."

This is why I'd be happy with identifying the top and bottom 10% of profs. If most students have 5 courses per term, then that amounts to the best and worst prof each year. (I'd also have "exit interviews" with graduates where they identify their best and worst 2 or 3 profs. They would have the advantage of perspective; a "hard" prof who prepared them well for the subsequent course would be appreciated after the fact. An "easy" prof who didn't would be criticized after the fact.)