CENTRAL CONNECTICUT STATE UNIVERSITY

BACK TO HOME PAGE

Standard 5: Faculty BACK


Description

CCSU has two distinct faculty categories as specified by the CSU-AAUP Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).  These categories are full-time teaching faculty and part-time teaching faculty (Article 1.6.1 and Article 1.6.2).  In the fall 2007 semester, there were 432 full-time faculty and 453 part-time faculty. CCSU does not employ graduate teaching assistants. Full-time faculty are responsible for the majority of instructional load credit at CCSU, and part-time faculty may be hired on a semester-by-semester basis to teach courses for which full-time faculty are not available.  When hiring part-time faculty, the department chair must consider their credentials, experience, and teaching merit (Article 4.6). In addition to addressing the appointment and evaluation of teaching faculty, the CBA also includes criteria and procedures for appointing and evaluating librarians, counselors, and coaches since they are represented by the same collective bargaining agent (AAUP). This section will focus on the criteria and procedures for full-time and part-time faculty who are members of academic departments offering the University’s academic programs.

Basic demographic data about faculty appointments, retention, and evaluations are collected by the offices of Diversity and Equity and Human Resources, and they are reviewed periodically by groups such as the Minority Recruitment and Retention Committee.  Employee demographic information is also tracked and reported by the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment. An exit interview process implemented in the last year provides information about reasons for leaving the University.

The CBA defines the preparation and qualifications for full-time and part-time teaching faculty (Articles 5.3.1, 5.3.2, 5.3.3, and 5.3.4).  These standards are primarily based on possession of an earned doctorate or the appropriate terminal degree along with years of service at an accredited college or university.  At the beginning of the 2007-2008 academic year, 79% of full-time faculty had an earned doctorate or appropriate terminal degree, 18% had a master’s degree, and 3% had some other academic degree appropriate for that field.

Instructional faculty are recruited and hired in accordance with policies and procedures of CCSU's Office of Diversity and Equity in concert with federal and state AA/EEO laws and regulations and the CBA.  

The CBA requires that full-time tenure-track faculty be initially appointed to a probationary period of no less than one year and no more than three years (Article 4.8.1).  Tenured appointment is given upon completion of not more than seven years of full-time service.  Salaries and benefits for faculty are set in the CBA. The AAUP publishes an annual report that compares faculty salaries and benefits by type of institution.   

The CBA states that the part-time faculty should not generate more than 20% of the University’s faculty workload (Article 10.8.1; Article 10.8.2 specifies the formula for calculating this percentage.  However, the University can exceed the goal of 20% by 1% for the 2007-2008 through 2010-2011 academic years.  The percent workload of part-time faculty was 15.22% in AY 2004-2005, 16.42% in AY 2005-2006, 16.16% in AY 2006-2007, and 13.55% in AY 2007-08.

CCSU attempts to integrate part-time faculty into departments and the institution in several different ways.  For instance, part-time faculty have representation in the CCSU-AAUP and the CCSU Faculty Senate.  In addition, part-time faculty are eligible to receive university funding for travel and faculty development (Article 12.10.1).

CCSU carefully monitors faculty workload (Article 10.2) and provides compensation for other types of workload credits outside of the classroom.  The CBA states that the instructional load for full-time teaching faculty is 12 load credits, where one class hour of lecture equals one load credit (Article 10.2). The CBA also specifies other supervisory, instructional, and administrative activities to which load credit may be assigned (Articles 10.2, 10.3, 10.4 and 10.6). The CBA also provides reassigned time for research (10.6.4), curriculum development, faculty development, and instructional enhancement (10.6.5).  Reassigned time may be given for grant-funded research that brings indirect cost funds to the University (10.10). The faculty instructional and total workload have remained relatively stable from the 2005-2006 academic year through the 2007-2008 academic year, averaging approximately 9.7 and 11.9 hours, respectively.

Assuring faculty effectiveness is a shared responsibility of faculty and academic leadership (Dean and Provost). The “Promotion and Tenure Policy for Tenure-Track Teaching Faculty” (ratified by the Faculty Senate on May 14, 2007) clarifies the process relating to evaluation. For example, it specifically addresses fairness in the evaluation of creative activity, stating that evaluation “shall reflect realistic expectations for faculty consistent with the 12-hour teaching load,” with the understanding that faculty receiving research reassigned time and/or sabbatical leaves may have proportionally higher expectations. The CBA spells out a grievance process for faculty (Article 15).

There is no specific contractual process for evaluating the quality of part-time faculty, although the contractual basis for assigning part-time faculty to available courses—the department chair’s determination of credentials, experience, and teaching merit—implies that the chair has the responsibility for determining the effectiveness of part-time teachers (Article 4.6). A few departments have included a procedure for evaluating part-time faculty in their by-laws (Exhibit 5.1).

The contractual criteria (Article 4.11.9) for evaluating and recommending full-time teaching faculty is the quality of activity in five categories:  load credit (typically teaching, but also department chair, research, student supervision, etc.); creative activity appropriate to one’s field; productive service to the department and university; professional activity; and years in rank.  The contract specifies that the five categories will be weighed in the order listed above. Thus, quality of teaching (and other activities for which load credit is awarded) is weighed ahead of the quality of scholarly activity. In addition, the CBA mandates the use of student opinion surveys when evaluating classroom teaching.  The use of peer review through observation is encouraged, especially in pre-tenure reviews.  These requirements further underscore the centrality of teaching in the mission and traditions of the University.

 

Teaching and Advising

Because the mission and purpose of CCSU center on teaching, the University encourages faculty to use a variety of instructional techniques and delivery systems. CCSU has a Center for Teaching Excellence and Leadership Development (Exhibit 5.2) that assists faculty by coordinating professional development activities and teaching resources, while helping faculty assess the outcome of student learning. In addition, the majority of courses are considered small in size (fewer than 40 students), which affords faculty the opportunity to be better acquainted with students’ capabilities and learning needs.

Since the last comprehensive institutional evaluation, there has been increased emphasis on assessment to assure that content and methods of instruction meet academic and professional standards and expectations.  In addition, there has been an increased awareness of the potential for using data about student learning and outcomes assessment to drive program improvement.

This emphasis places a heavy responsibility on faculty both to understand and apply high professional standards to the work of teaching and learning. Artifacts of teaching—course syllabi, assessment tools such as rubrics, student course evaluations as required by the CBA, peer evaluations of teaching—are reviewed by the Department Evaluation Committee, Academic Dean, University Promotion and Tenure Committee, and the Provost. (A new provision in the current CBA [Article 4.11.14] specifies that the Provost now makes decisions concerning promotion and tenure, unless she or he disagrees with two preceding levels of review, in which case the President decides.  In the past, the President was the deciding authority in all cases, and no specific role was specified for the Provost.)
 

Scholarship, Research, and Creative Activity

The scholarly expectations for CCSU faculty are defined generally in the CBA as “creative activity appropriate to one’s field such as delivering papers at professional conferences, production/performance of artistic works, research, study, and publication.” Article 4.11.9.2 states that “creative activity,” which is a contractual expectation for full-time faculty, is to be the second most strongly weighted factor when evaluating and making recommendations for promotion and tenure. The “Promotion and Tenure Policy for Tenure-Track Teaching Faculty” provides a more specific definition of scholarship at CCSU and, consistent with the importance of teaching in the mission of the University, references the four categories of scholarship in Boyer’s Scholarship Reconsidered (1990).  The value of scholarship in the life of CCSU’s academic community is underscored publicly in several ways. The CSUS Trustees have established an annual award for scholarship that recognizes one CCSU faculty each year. A sample of faculty scholarly work is listed in the University Annual Report (See Exhibit 2.6) and faculty scholars are featured in the in-house Central Courier and the CSUS Universe Publication (Exhibit 5.3).  Nearly 15% of the faculty receive internal research grants each year, and 5% receive sabbaticals to support their scholarship and professional development.  When proposing projects, faculty typically draw a strong link between the creative work or research they propose, and their teaching and other professional responsibilities.

Faculty have input on research policy and practice.  For example, CSU-AAUP research grants, a contractually mandated resource, are reviewed and funding decisions are recommended by a committee, as specified by the CBA (Article 9.10).  Committee members across recent years have all been faculty.  Funding decisions in the School of Arts and Sciences for Dean’s Scholarly Excellence Grants are made by a committee of faculty department chairpersons in the school in consultation with the dean.  The Human Studies Council, our Institutional Review Board with ethics and procedural oversight of research studies conducted at CCSU or by CCSU faculty, staff or students, currently has 73% faculty membership and is chaired by a member of the faculty. 

Faculty members have opportunities, available resources and contractual expectations to continue their professional development across their tenure at the University.  Research and scholarship are supported by a number of contractual mandates and other elective processes, including internal (Exhibit 5.4) and external grants, funding for travel to professional conferences, reassigned time for research and scholarship, sabbatical leaves, support from the CCSU Foundation and additional institutional support to enhance faculty scholarship.  Allocations for internal grants, travel and reassigned time are contractual and subject to collective bargaining.  The contract specifies that a minimum of 108 credit hours of reassigned time for research per semester must be granted with a maximum of six hours reassigned per faculty member.  In addition, the contract specifies a minimum of 132 credit hours of reassigned time for curriculum development, instructional enhancement, and faculty development.  CCSU also encourages faculty to seek internal and external grant and contract funding to support their scholarly activities. The Office of Sponsored Programs supports the grant application process. Ninety percent of faculty-development funds are available for full-time faculty.

Academic freedom is contractually guaranteed by the CBA (Article 4.2).  This article states that full freedom in research and publication, as well as freedom to discuss assigned subjects in the classroom, are fundamental faculty rights.  A contractual process for dealing with allegations of violations of academic freedom is specified in the contract. The contract specifies a process for the formation of an Academic Freedom Committee, which “shall have the power to adjudicate substantive issues and to direct a remedy.” Academic freedom and related issues may also fall within the CSU-AAUP contractual grievance process.  The CBA specifies that no faculty member shall be discriminated against in violation of federal or state statutes (Article 3) and specifies faculty professional rights and responsibilities (Article 4).

Under State law, State of Connecticut employees, including the CCSU faculty, are guided by the Code of Ethics for Public Officials and State Employees.  In addition, the Connecticut State University System Board of Trustees has prepared an Ethics Statement (May 2006) that further elaborates on ethics requirements for all employees connected to the Connecticut State University System.  In January 2006, the University assigned the duties of Ethics Compliance Officer (ECO), a position required by State law, to an attorney reporting to the Chief Human Resources Officer but who also responds to Presidential inquiries and works in conjunction with Counsel to the President.  The ECO is responsible for the coordination of ethics compliance, information, training, and counsel to all State employees on campus.

CCSU highly values personal integrity as fundamental to faculty and student interaction. Student academic integrity is clearly defined in the CCSU Student Handbook, undergraduate and graduate catalogs, and the university Web site.  Faculty are encouraged to include a statement on academic integrity in their course syllabi. Allegations of student academic misconduct are adjudicated by the University Judicial Officer.
 

Appraisal

While the roles and responsibilities of full-time faculty are clearly defined in the CBA and the CCSU Faculty Handbook, the role of part-time faculty is not defined beyond teaching classes where full-time faculty are not available.  Many part-time faculty have expressed interest in greater opportunities for involvement and recognition in the life of the University.

The CCSU Strategic Plan calls for “increasing the number of full-time faculty,” to which the University has made a significant commitment. The number of full-time faculty has been increased from 409 in 2004-05 to 432 in 2007-08. The objective is closely tied to the goal of reducing the percentage of student credit hours taught by part-time faculty relative to full-time faculty. For the past three years, full-time faculty have taught an average of 67% of student credit hours, which is slightly below the target of 75%. 

All CCSU faculty salaries are determined by the CBA.  Salary ranges are based on faculty rank and not disciplinary differences.  As a result, salaries are not as competitive in fields such as business and engineering, making it difficult to hire qualified faculty in these areas. 

CCSU’s measure of faculty workload does not comprehensively portray all faculty assignments and workload.  For example, student advising is not considered in workload calculations.  In large academic departments, student advising is a significant part of faculty workload, whereas it is much less so in departments with fewer majors.

The distribution of instructional load credits varies by school. From 2005-06 to 2007-08, faculty in the School of Arts and Sciences have averaged 9.9 instructional load credits per full-time faculty member; faculty in the School of Business have averaged 8.2 instructional load credits per full-time faculty member; faculty in the School of Education and Professional Studies have averaged 9.5 instructional load credits per full-time faculty member; and faculty in the School of Engineering and Technology have averaged 10.5 instructional load credits per full-time faculty member.

CCSU’s measures of instructional effectiveness are not sufficiently robust and comprehensive for an institution that identifies teaching and learning as its highest priority.  The CBA requires only that instructional effectiveness be assessed through student opinion surveys, but neither the instrument nor its method of administration is standardized.  Some academic departments use peer observation methods as part of their faculty evaluation process, but this method is optional and is also not standardized. The CBA does not define evaluation criteria for part-time faculty nor require any type of the evaluation of their instructional effectiveness. 

CCSU has made significant efforts to ensure academic integrity over the past decade.  The Faculty Senate established the Committee on Academic Integrity, which created a policy on academic misconduct and oversaw the Academic Integrity Project.  A question on the 2007 College Employee Survey touches on this issue and indicates that most employees (79%) report being satisfied or very satisfied with the statement “Academic integrity and professional ethics are important to my department.”

The Academic Integrity project assessed the use of and familiarity with the misconduct policy.  Of the 421 students surveyed, 89.5% reported engaging in at least one of 16 academic misconduct behaviors. A majority of the 157 faculty surveyed reported that they rarely made accusations of misconduct and they also had little to some knowledge of CCSU’s Academic Misconduct Policy.  However, all surveyed faculty reported using strategies to deter misconduct, such as close supervision of exams, including policies in course syllabi, designing assignments to make it difficult to use unapproved sources.  Data provided by the Office of Student Conduct for the years 2003-2007 reveals the following number of cases reported each year: 15 cases in 2003, 57 cases in 2004, 66 cases in 2005, 52 cases in 2006, and 18 cases in 2007.  The low number of reported cases of academic integrity violations may suggest that faculty are not systematically implementing the Academic Integrity Policy. The committee also administered a university-wide electronic survey to determine faculty familiarity with the policy and how they enforce it, and it is working on making sure that all sources of information (undergraduate and graduate) are consistent with one another. The Academic Integrity Committee is working with the Provost and the Judicial Officer to refine Academic Integrity procedures.  The committee provided a full report to the Faculty Senate in May, 2008.

Although core CSU policies related to faculty employment are easily accessed in the CBA, the lack of a comprehensive and up-to-date faculty handbook means that there is no single place where faculty can access information about all CCSU policies and structures related to their employment. Currently such information is spread over many web pages. 

Despite many procedural and contractual safeguards to ensure equity and fairness, a November 2007 survey distributed to all faculty assigned to teaching departments revealed a high degree of concern about the extent to which policies appropriately reflect CCSU’s mission and are applied equitably and fairly. Fewer than half of the responding faculty agreed or strongly agreed that policies related to faculty evaluation, promotion and tenure are compatible with the mission and applied equitably. Responses to recruitment and appointment items were more positive. Responses to the items on faculty responsibilities indicated a perception that policies are compatible with the mission, but there is a less positive view about equitable application of the policies. (See Tables 1 and 2.)

Although the survey indicated a fairly high level of concern about fairness, AAUP reports only seven grievances related to faculty tenure and promotion and two related to part-time faculty appointments that have been filed and settled or withdrawn since 2004.

Data concerning recruitment, appointment, retention, and promotion of the faculty are reported annually as part of Connecticut’s requirements for affirmative action reporting to the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities. (See Exhibit 2.3.) Data about faculty promotion and tenure disaggregated by gender and race/ethnicity are available to administrators and governance groups.  Concern about the President’s tenure and promotion decisions in 2006 led to extensive campus discussion and the development by the Faculty Senate of the new “Promotion and Tenure Policy for Tenure-Track Teaching Faculty.”

The implementation of the new policy is on-going. As of July 2008, 19 academic departments completed the process of developing their guidelines and submitting them for review by AAUP and administration for compatibility with applicable contractual requirements and institutional policies. Clearly elaborated guidelines will provide better guidance to full-time faculty that should lead, over time, to a more consistent perception of fairness in evaluation (see Table 2) for a summary of current perceptions.

With the wider implementation of assessment on campus have come discussions about the role that documenting student learning, developing assessment tools, and collecting data might play in the evaluation of faculty. There are on-going discussions about the appropriate use of teaching portfolios to supplement the required student and recommended peer evaluations of teaching; a review of the guidelines developed by each department in response to the new faculty evaluation policy will provide a good indication about the role of outcomes assessment in individual faculty evaluation.

Collectively, most contractual and additional resources to support faculty professional development are increasing.  The amount of special funds available for AY 2007-2008 totals to $667,489 for CCSU.  This represents an increase of 4.5% over the prior year’s allocation.  Special funds are scheduled to increase annually by an average of 4.5% over the life of the new CBA (2007-2011).  Travel and research grant funds are the largest budgeted items in the contractual special funds totaling $493,976 divided equally for the AY. The approximately $247,000 available for travel represents an increase of 6.6% over the prior year.  Faculty development funding was basically unchanged from the prior year ($55, 572) while curriculum development funding was reduced by 13% to $61,747.

The new CBA has increased the “appropriate” number of sabbatical leaves from 64 to 70 for the 2007-2011 period, so CCSU can expect a rise from 22 sabbatical leaves approved in 2005-2006 (for 2007-2008) to approximately 24 in the coming years. Approximately 84% of sabbatical applications were supported across the last three years (under the old contract) but in 2007-2008, only 18 people applied for sabbatical leave in 2008-2009.  All were approved.

The November 2007 survey of teaching faculty indicated that approximately 41% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that CCSU "provides me with substantial opportunities for continued professional development," although over 78% reported that they take advantage of the opportunities provided.  The survey also indicated that approximately 45% agreed or strongly agreed that such opportunities were equitably provided. (See Tables 3, 4, 5.)

A recent survey of academic faculty indicated that a clear majority of respondents (64%) agreed or strongly agreed that CCSU "protects and fosters academic freedom of all faculty, regardless of rank or term of appointment.” (See Table 6.)

Some faculty have expressed dissatisfaction with ethics procedures and conditions of employment that some believe have impinged on their academic freedom, such as the textbook use policy, the outside consulting policy, and dual employment policy/off-campus teaching research ethics review.  Such policies are mandated either by contract or by State law or federal regulation and have generally been integrated on campus with faculty input across time.

Although departments report publications, presentations and other scholarship in their annual reports to deans, such data are not compiled systematically across the University making a direct quantitative assessment of scholarship difficult.

Internal grant funding and external grant and contract success have increased significantly in recent years. Internal research grant funding is one of the two most highly funded of the “special funds” in the CBA totaling approximately $247,000 for 07-08 AY. This funding represents an increase of 12.6% over the prior academic year.  These funds are scheduled to increase by approximately 4.5% annually for the remainder of the new contract.

CCSU encourages faculty to seek external grant and contract funding to support their scholarship activities.  The Sponsored Programs Office supports the grant application process.  The number of external grants and contracts awarded to CCSU personnel has increased by approximately 294% across the last seven years, with annual funding increases across the same time of approximately 256%.

The CCSU Foundation supports joint faculty-student research grants.  In the most recent year, from data available, 16 of 18 applications were funded for a total of $9,022.  In a recent survey of graduating undergraduate and graduate students (N = 208), approximately two-thirds reported that they participated in research or creative activities at CCSU, 72% agreed or strongly agreed that student research and creative activity is supported at CCSU and that the University provides outlets for presentation of student research and creative activities. 

A recent survey of academic faculty examined issues relating to support for faculty research, creative activity and scholarship.  Approximately 41% of respondents indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed that adequate physical space was provided for these purposes; these percentages were 56% with respect to adequate technological resources and 30% for adequate administrative resources. (See Tables 7, 8, 9)

 

Consistent themes in open-ended responses for these items focused on inadequate research and creative space and often crowded office space conditions hindering research productivity.  Although some indicated that IT support is excellent, several faculty also cited a lack of support for certain types of computers (e.g., Macs), the need for specific kinds of specialized software, better media support and better library resources, particularly on-line resources. With respect to administrative resources, the most commonly reported problem was the lack of adequate reassigned time for research to help offset the 12-hour teaching load.  Despite the increases in external grant funding, some faculty suggested that grant writing and administration support should be enhanced. To respond to this need workshops are periodically held on campus. For example Sponsored Programs hosted a National Endowment for the Humanities Workshop in April, 2008, with Dr. Rice from the Endowment as the speaker. Forty participants attended: 10 from CCSU and others from SCSU, WCSU, ECSU, the New Britain Museum of American Art and other organizations including schools and non-profit agencies from across Connecticut. 

The extent of faculty turnover is another indicator of institutional effectiveness around sufficiency and support for the faculty.  A review of data collected about faculty who leave the University since 2005 indicates that 41 left in 2005, 44 left in 2006, and 47 left in 2007.  Of these, the largest number is people on special or emergency appointments.  In all, over three years, just five (three whites, two Asians) were for non-renewal of contract/refusal to grant tenure.  Resignations accounted for 27 departures, including four African Americans, three Asians and one Hispanic, suggesting that a disproportional number of people of color left the University. Very few people who leave the University provide reasons, but among those who did, reasons included child-rearing, family-related moves, compensation, lack of clarity of promotion and tenure expectations, and shortage of research resources.

Increases in the number of faculty and discussion about teaching load are important first steps in alleviating a major concern that faculty expressed in the Noel-Levitz CESS survey:  the consistency of teaching load responsibilities with institutional expectations for research/creative activity. The mean score for full-time faculty on this item was 1.84 (where 2 is “not very satisfied” and 1 is “not satisfied at all.”  The survey also revealed faculty concerns about the institution’s ability to meet the needs of faculty.  Both part-time and full-time faculty groups placed a high level of importance on meeting the needs of faculty (4.52 and 4.67 on a scale where 5 is “very important” and 4 is “important”), but neither group was particularly satisfied with the support they were receiving.  A separate online faculty survey revealed additional concerns about the adequacy of resource support for research, creative activity, and scholarship.  (See Tables 7, 8, 9)  These data suggest a misalignment between perceptions of the faculty and the administration concerning the appropriateness of expectations and the adequacy of resources.

Another area that needs further attention is assuring that a greater number of faculty, particularly senior faculty, participate effectively in shared governance and other service activities.  For example, institutional efforts to promote community engagement are highly relevant to CCSU’s mission, but there are concerns about how this work will “count” toward promotion and tenure (especially when faculty express concern about increasing expectations for research and creative activity).

The self-study process also revealed that when faculty are entered into the database no distinction has been made between such degrees as the MFA and a master’s degree.  As a result, the University has under-reported the proportion of its faculty who hold terminal degrees.  In addition, the database had not been consistently updated when faculty hired ABD earned their degrees.  Numerous errors were flagged and fixed, but a systematic process for doing so on a regular basis will improve institutional effectiveness.

 

Projection

CCSU should assign a more defined role to part-time faculty that better describes how they support the University’s mission.  Part-time faculty are encouraged to participate in university governance, but neither the CBA nor the Faculty Handbook provides any statement of how they are to contribute to the activities of the University other than to teach classes where full-time faculty are unavailable.

CCSU needs to develop a standard metric to measure workload and faculty time commitment that includes teaching, academic advising, creative activity, and administrative functions.  As called for in the Strategic Plan, CCSU will undertake to study faculty workload to explore options for redistributing faculty work and for assigning reassigned time more equitably.  The University will also need to focus in the future on concerns about a perceived increase in demands placed on faculty (increased emphasis on advising, community engagement, student research, faculty scholarship, and assessment) and their implications for the distribution of faculty workload and for the allocation of resources. A comparison of workload and expectations with peer institutions could clarify whether the emerging expectations are appropriate and reasonable in light of the institution’s mission.

Because university policies are not presently compiled in a single location, CCSU needs to move forward with the development of a web-based, searchable repository for all university and CSU System policies and regulations. Similarly, the University would benefit from establishing an “ethics portal” on the CCSU Web site to serve as a searchable repository for all ethics information, guidelines, policies, and regulations from the University and State. The University can also improve its effectiveness in communicating submission deadlines to faculty (e.g., outside teaching requests, approval to use self-authored texts, research reassigned time, etc.), which could be addressed by a comprehensive calendar.

To address the disagreement between the university administration and the faculty concerning the availability of resources to support faculty work and development, the University plans to develop more effective methods for communicating about available resources.

In a recent survey, faculty expressed concerns about the adequacy of office space and physical space for research and creative activity. Documenting the amount of available laboratory and other space dedicated specifically to research, scholarship and creative activity will clarify whether faculty perception is consistent with real need.  With over $248 million earmarked for CCSU in the CSU 2020 plan approved by the State Legislature and the Governor, CCSU has detailed plans to ensure that faculty have adequate office space and space to pursue research.

There should be a quantitative and qualitative summary of research across the University.  Such data could help new faculty members understand the amount and type of scholarship that is ongoing at the University, clarify scholarly norms and expectations and assist compliance efforts surrounding the ethical review of research by providing a baseline figure of the actual number of studies conducted annually. 

The University recently received a free trial membership for plagiarism software, Turnitin.com, which is a step that may help faculty members to combat the problem of academic dishonesty.  Further, the Academic Integrity Committee should continue its efforts to better understand faculty needs and to provide workshops and tools to assist faculty with the prevention and detection of plagiarism and other forms of misconduct. Greater efforts must also be made to encourage faculty members to utilize the established procedure for reporting student violations of academic integrity. The Academic Integrity Committee will also focus increasingly on efforts to promote a culture of academic integrity.


Institutional Effectiveness

The collective bargaining process affords the most formalized periodic opportunities for reviewing and negotiating about the sufficiency of the faculty, the adequacy of faculty support, and the mechanism for assuring quality appropriate to institutional mission.  Contract negotiations have resulted in regular increases in the minimum standards for award of sabbaticals, travel funds, faculty development grants, curriculum development grants, research grants, research reassigned time, and retraining for full-time faculty.

 

The effectiveness of individual faculty members follows CBA requirements (see Article 4 and Article 5).  Of particular note are the annual pre-tenure evaluations; the contractual procedures for tenure and promotion evaluations; and the evaluation of tenured faculty at least every six years. A procedure for special assessment to address problems and concerns is also available at any time should a faculty member’s academic dean or the provost deem it necessary. The new “Promotion and Tenure Policy for Tenure-Track Teaching Faculty” further defines the University’s collective understanding of the categories of evaluation, charging each academic department to define in writing during 2007-2008 the guidelines they will use for evaluating faculty effectiveness.
 

Back to Main Page


1615 Stanley Street, New Britain, CT 06050  860.832.CCSU or toll free instate 1-888-733-2278


 
Copyright © 2005 [Central Connecticut State University]. All rights reserved.
webmaster@ccsu.edu
Last Update: Friday September 12, 2008