The following serve as the key principles of the School of Human Ecology regarding hire, evaluation and promotion within the Teaching Faculty series. Before SoHE departments can hire within this series, they will need to develop a vision for the blend of tenure-track faculty, Teaching Professors, Instructional Administrators, and Teaching Faculty within their units. Department plans must be reviewed by the SoHE Academic Planning Council for recommendation to and approved by the Dean to ensure consistency within the School, and to confirm that the plans are consistent with SoHE and campus guidelines.

As defined by the Standard Job Description (SJD) for Teaching Faculty I, II, & III, a Teaching Faculty “provides classroom, online and/or laboratory instruction associated with more than one lecture or laboratory course, assists with the design and execution of administrative functions associated with academic instruction and the development of pedagogy/andragogy or assessment tools and resources to support quality student learning. Provides for-credit instruction in formats such as classroom, online and/or laboratory settings, including grading. Serves as an instructor of record.” In the School of Human Ecology, we expect Teaching Faculty to bring their practical skills and industry experience to students’ learning and career development.

Teaching Faculty Standard Job Descriptions

 (Highlights differences between titles)

**Teaching Faculty IV will only be used in limited circumstances in the SoHE.  Teaching Faculty IV will be made available, case-by-case, based on the department chair’s recommendation and Dean’s approval, reflecting a qualified individual’s new or additional responsibilities.

Teaching Faculty appointments will proceed through open recruitment searches following School and campus HR guidelines. The following steps must be followed:

• Departments develop and approve Teaching Faculty position descriptions.
• The position proposals must be approved by the SoHE Academic Planning Council for recommendation to the Dean.
• Upon approval of the Dean, search and appointment may proceed per School search policy and process.

Standard Teaching Faculty appointments include 80% teaching and 20% service/leadership. 

Course load and service expectations are defined further below.  Depending on department needs, other responsibilities may be substituted for course load as long as departmental instructional needs are met.  Substitutions must be approved by the department chair.

Course load expectations:

80% teaching translates to:

• 9-month appointments = 8 courses per year, generally 4 in each fall/spring term
• 12-month appointments = 10 courses per year, generally 4 in each fall/spring and 2 in summer

For Teaching Professors on 9-month appointments, additional compensation may be possible for summer term instruction or for substantive projects conducted during the summer months.

 “1 course” Definition:

Workload varies across courses based on a variety of factors (e.g. number of credits, size of enrollment, mode of instruction, number of course preps, etc.)  For the purposes of establishing a baseline work load, “1 course” is defined as a 3-credit course with substantive enrollment with some exceptions as outlined below.

• “Substantive” enrollment is defined by a minimum of:
  • 15 for studio courses
  • 30 for lecture or online courses
• In situations where enrollments are sufficiently above these minimums, instructional support may be provided
• In situations where enrollments are less than substantive, additional teaching or service responsibilities will be assigned by the department chair to make up the balance
• In the case of courses with fewer than 3-credits, multiple 1- or 2-crecit courses can be combined to equal 1 course load, or additional teaching or service responsibilities can be assigned to make up the balance

Service and leadership expectations:

In addition to instruction, Teaching Faculty are expected to (1) engage in activities/initiatives that facilitate students’ personal and professional/career development, and (2) play an active role in the department and school, especially as it relates to undergraduate education. 

Service and leadership responsibilities vary across individuals and departments.  While some responsibilities are expected of everyone (* below) others are dependent on the person and the position.  Examples include:

• Active participation in department meetings*
• Active participation in SoHE-wide meetings and retreats*
• Mentoring undergraduate students (beyond what is expected via course instruction) *
• Engagement in professional development opportunities to foster teaching and learning excellence*
• Advising student organization(s)
• Facilitating student experiential learning outside the classroom
• Membership on department, SoHE and/or campus committees
• Fostering industry connections and internship placements
• Facilitating industry advisory boards
• Program administration
• Program assessment

1. 1. Annual Review

All Teaching Faculty in the School of Human Ecology will participate in an annual review process (see Appendix A). The purposes of the annual review are to:

• Provide individuals with feedback on their performance for the past calendar year and to set goals for the coming year and to recommend promotion when applicable.
• Assist in the growth and development of the Teaching Faculty
• Encourage the promotion of excellence in teaching, mentorship, educational innovation and leadership, and service
• Make the process consistent and uniform across units in the SoHE
• Create clear, objective criteria for expectations
• Provide individual Teaching Faculty with developmental and candid feedback
• Be more effective in achieving departmental and SoHE human capital goals
• When applicable, assist in the assignment of merit ratings and in the identification of potential nominees for awards and/or special recognitions at the school, campus, and/or national levels

2. 2. Comprehensive Review

All Teaching Faculty will participate in a periodic comprehensive review. The purpose of the comprehensive review is to create an opportunity that recognizes outstanding achievement, provides opportunities for professional development, and identifies areas for growth in teaching, mentorship and/or service.  This process is meant to build upon and complement the annual review process. 

The first comprehensive review will take place in year three of the new teaching staff appointment.  Thereafter, Teaching Faculty will complete a comprehensive review every 5th year.  (See Appendix B)

Campus recognizes two types of “career excellence”, Progression and Promotion. Neither progression nor promotion are automatic based on a predetermined number of years within a title.

Progression acknowledges sustained or improved excellence within the same job title due to increased knowledge, skills, abilities, years of experience, certifications/licenses/degrees, and/or other elements that add value to an employee’s ability to perform their job and ability to impact their academic unit. Opportunities for career progression may be identified during the annual review. Progression allows for a variety of pay increase opportunities such as market, retention, parity and pay plan. 

Promotion is advancement to a new job title and a change in responsibilities.  Promotion will be evaluated on new position responsibilities as identified in the SJD title that are being currently performed or anticipated within the program (refer to job responsibilities table above).  When considering promotion to a different title, attention should be given to the candidate’s quality of demonstrated leadership at both the department and the School level with respect to educational innovation including the unique responsibilities of the title pursued (see Appendix C.)

All Teaching faculty shall participate in an annual review. The purpose of these reviews is to create an opportunity that recognizes outstanding achievement, provides opportunities for professional development, and identifies areas for growth in teaching, mentoring, and/or service.

Process

1. Teaching Faculty will document their teaching, mentoring, and service activities in the campus Performance Management and Development Program (PMDP) system.

2. A committee of the department chairs and the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education and Innovation will individually review the PMDP reports and teaching evaluations and record preliminary ratings and comments prior to meeting. Following committee review and discussion, final ratings and comments will be recorded in PMDP.  Final review will include:

• Single rating for each job responsibility (see table below) and an overall rating (Meeting Expectations or Not Meeting Expectations)
• Comments for each review area

Ratings are defined as follows:

“Exemplary” signifies exceptional performance on most or all of the expectations in a given year.  

“Successful” denotes that the employee is successfully meeting most or all of the expectations of the job duties.  

“Developing” indicates that they employee is meeting some of the expectations and is on a positive trajectory toward success.  

“Partially meeting” signifies the employee is meeting some of the expectations and further development is needed. 

“Not meeting” means the employee is not meeting the expectations of the role and significant development is needed.

3. Department Chairs will also independently provide ratings in PMDP regarding Criteria for Success for the Teaching Faculty they supervise.  The Criteria for Success domains are the same for all academic staff in the School of Human Ecology and include:

• • • Commitment to the mission of the University and work unit
    • Positive approach to change and improvements
    • Commitment to the job
    • Commitment to fostering a respectful, effective, and collegial work environment
    • Management/Supervision (if applicable)

4. Department Chairs will meet individually with each Teaching Faculty in their department and shall incorporate a Chair’s assessment along with the committee review in PMDP.  The Chair’s job will be to identify strengths, talk about areas of improvement, and offer problem solving in those areas that need improvement. This discussion also should be an opportunity for the Teaching Faculty to note areas where they, the Department, and the School could improve.

5. If an individual falls below satisfactory performance, it is the responsibility of the Department Chair, in consultation with the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education and Innovation to follow through with a specific professional development plan.

Timeline

1. By mid-January (Tuesday after MLK holiday): All Teaching Faculty submit their annual review report using PMDP
2. By February 15- Annual Review Committee deliberation
3. By March 15 – Individual meeting between Teaching Faculty and Department Chair (highlights, feedback, and developmental plan)

The first comprehensive review will take place in year three of the new teaching staff appointment.  Thereafter, Teaching Faculty will complete a comprehensive review every 5th year.

Process and Timeline

1. The SoHE Dean’s Office will maintain a record of due dates for comprehensive review and will inform the Teaching Faculty and their Department Chair about those reports due in the following academic year no later than May 31^st
2. Each Teaching Faculty who is due for comprehensive review shall prepare a dossier consisting of:
   1. a statement of accomplishments since beginning the position or the last comprehensive review,
   2. an up-to-date resume,
   3. and a statement of future goals no later than October 1^st in the fall semester.

The Dean’s office will complete the dossier with annual review data and provide access to the original annual reports as requested.

3. The Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education and Innovation and the Department Chairs shall conduct the review of the materials and meet with the Teaching Faculty before preparing their report.
4. The review outcomes will be as follows:
1. Excellent Progress – Demonstrating excellent progress on most criteria below;
2. Satisfactory Progress – Demonstrating satisfactory progress on most criteria below; recommendation to achieve excellent progress
3. Developing – Demonstrating satisfactory progress in some, but not all, criteria below; recommendation for development plan

Criteria

1. Teaching Faculty I should demonstrate the following:

1. An emerging record of teaching experience, and evidence of successful management and completion of prior teaching-related activities.
2. Exhibit knowledge of teaching/learning pedagogy across multiple modalities.
3. Strong potential for development as an outstanding teacher through, and demonstrated interest in, the scholarship of teaching and learning and in pedagogy. 
4. Experience in assessing student performance and supporting student success.
5. Strong potential for mentoring students and supporting their career development.
6. A willingness to support the overall instructional mission of the respective unit.
   
   

2. Teaching Faculty II should demonstrate the following:

1. An impressive, sustained record of excellent teaching (preferably in multiple modalities), as evidenced by student and peer evaluation, recognition through awards, or other marks of achievement.
2. Exhibit proficiency in teaching/learning pedagogy across multiple modalities.
3. Demonstrated experience in independently creating and designing courses in the field of expertise.
4. Excellence in assessing student performance and supporting student success.
5. Excellence in mentoring students and supporting their career development.
6. Excellence in the development of teaching strategies, including participation in instructional development activities/programs.

3. Teaching Faculty III should demonstrate the following:

1. An impressive and sustained record of outstanding teaching (preferably in multiple modalities), as evidenced by peer evaluation, recognition through awards, and other marks of achievement such as producing scholarship/creative activity in teaching and learning.
2. Exhibit excellence in teaching/learning pedagogy across multiple modalities.
3. Demonstrated instructional and curricular leadership.
4. Demonstrated and recognized outstanding achievement in supporting student success.
5. Leadership in the development of teaching strategies, including designing, organizing, and/or leading instructional development programs.
6. Sustained excellence in mentoring students and supporting their career development. 
7. Leadership in the creation of courses and in contributions to the overall curricular mission of the unit.

Process

A. Eligibility for Promotion. Teaching Faculty I and II become eligible for promotional review upon the recommendation of the Chairs Review Committee.  Invitation to be considered for promotion will be communicated from the Dean’s office along with notification of the fifth-year review in the previous spring. 

B. Written Notification of Intent to Seek Promotion. If the Teaching Faculty’s intention to be considered for promotion comes after the initial fifth-year review, that Teaching Faculty will give written notice to their Department Chair during the annual spring review to be considered for promotion in the following academic year.  It is encouraged that interested and eligible candidates discuss their intention with the Department Chair and/or Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education and Innovation in advance.

C. Conversation with Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education and Innovation.  Upon the notice of intention to be considered for promotion, the AD will advise the candidate about the procedures for promotion and timeline. This meeting should not be construed as the AD’s endorsement of promotion.

D. Dossier Contents:

• Curriculum vitae
• Fifth-year Comprehensive Report if completed within two years of the promotion review. Otherwise, a current report should be prepared using the comprehensive review criteria (see appendix B). 
• Statement of teaching philosophy, evidence of demonstrated excellence on the promotion criteria, and interest/willingness to add a new assignment(s) commensurate with the promoted rank.  Scholarship on teaching and learning, if applicable.
• Summary of teaching activities: This should include a list of all courses taught, numbers of students in each course, relevant learning innovations in the courses, and any course or curriculum development, if applicable.
• Peer review of candidate’s teaching: A reviewer selected by the AD for Undergraduate Education and Innovation should document their evaluation of the candidate’s teaching.
• Teaching awards and recognitions, if applicable.
• Letters of Support to include:
  • Confidential Letter from the department chair submitted directly to Associate Dean with recommendation for promotion that confirms the responsibilities of the promotional title are currently being performed or are anticipated.
  • Names for Letters of Support (three to five letters): Letters will be solicited from the Associate Dean’s office.  References should include a disciplinary or instructional expert within the department, a disciplinary or instructional expert within Human Ecology and/or UW-Madison, current and or former students.
• The Dean’s office will complete the dossier with annual review data and provide access to the original annual reports as requested.

E. Committee Review.  The Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education and Education will chair a standing committee as appointed by the Dean.  In addition to the AD, the committee will be composed of:

• One or two members from the academic unit
• One or two members from outside the department (from within SoHE or from across campus as appropriate).

This committee may be comprised of Teaching Professors, Teaching Faculty of varying rank, and/or academic staff and tenured faculty.  Ideal committee members will have teaching expertise and/or experience working directly with the candidate.

F. Recommendation to the Dean and Final Decision.  The Committee will submit its recommendation to the Dean as an advisory recommendation. The Dean will then make the final decision for promotion and notify the Candidate.

G. Appeals Process. If the Committee or the Dean denies the request for promotion, the Dean’s office will share with the reasons for the decision within 10 working days of the recommendation. The candidate may submit a written appeal to the Dean within 20 working days upon receiving the denial. They should provide new or additional information and a response to the issues raised. Upon consideration of the appeal, the Dean may seek the advice of an ad-hoc committee before making the final determination.