SENATE EDUCATIONAL POLICIES COMMITTEE

Minutes

April 16, 1998

The meeting was held in 6061 Forbes Tower, the Physical Therapy Conference Room


Attending: Sue Whitney, Chairperson; Jean Blachère; David M. Crossman; Richard Hanna; Kerry Holzworth; Leon Khaimovich; Tom Metzger; Susan Neuman; and Tony Silvestre

1. The minutes of the March meeting were accepted.

2. Update from the Chair

a. Dr. Whitney sent all members of the committee a copy of last years report on peer evaluations for discussion at today's meeting

b. Dr. Whitney has been trying to reach the Student Affairs Committee to discuss our interest in evaluation issues. She has not been successful as yet.

c. The Committee discussed the email regarding plus and minus grades. Dr. Whitney spoke to Dr. Plotnicov about his email on the lack of effect that A plus grades have on QPAs and the seeming inequity that arises when a student receives many A plus grades but ends up with the same QPA as someone with only A grades. Considerable discussion ensued. Dr. Whitney noted that there are inconsistencies in policy on the issue among schools and inconsistent practices within schools. Dr. Crossman suggested that we would do a disservice to students if our grading system was not similar to systems used at other colleges and universities since interpreting grades in schools with unusual grading policies may cause them problems. The committee decided to take no action and to suggest to Dr. Plotnicov that he pursue the issue at the school level.

3. Peer Evaluations

Dr. Whitney led a long discussion of issues related to peer evaluation in order to identify questions for Dr. Daniel to consider sending out to deans and heads of other units. The following questions were developed and will be sent to Dr. Daniel.


A. What progress has your unit made in instituting a peer evaluation process since last year?

B. What specific evaluations of faculty teaching are used in your unit and how often are faculty evaluated? (Please attach a copy of all of the forms used in these evaluations.)

C. Exactly how is teaching weighed in promotion or tenure decisions? What happens when a faculty member is strong in research but weak in teaching?

D. When a problem related to teaching is identified, how does the unit respond? What remedies are available in your unit to assist faculty deal with their problems and to ensure that it is dealt with?

E. How can the University assist you to deal with problems arising from faculty who are poor teachers?

Mr. Khaimovich raised the issue that the focus on teaching "evaluations" suggests that their primary purpose is as a human resource tool, that is, as a measure for use in promotion and tenure decisions. He suggested that a different term be used in order to emphasize evaluations as a mechanism for assisting faculty to improve the quality of their teaching. In support of his view, he read from a memo discussing evaluations solely in terms of job advancement and with no reference to improving teaching for its own sake.

4. The Report of Dr. Sorcinelli's Assessment of Faculty Development Issues

The committee has not yet received a copy of Dr. Sorcinelli's report. The committee asked Dr. Whitney to contact the Provost's office to inquire about the status of the report.


The next meeting of the committee was scheduled for May 13, 1998 from 10:30 a.m. till noon.