Arts and Sciences Senate
March 24th 2008

Dr. Cynthia Davidson called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m.

I.  Approval of Agenda:  approved

II. Approval of minutes from February 19, 2008:  approved

III.  Report on the College of Arts and Sciences (J. Staros):

  • Last reported that in the Executive Budget there was a proposed 1 1/2% increase for SUNY.  However, with the new contract and other obligations, it is anticipated that the expenses in SUNY will rise by 4%.  This means that the other 2 1/2% will have to come for the campuses.  Since then, Governor Patterson has asked the legislature to take the original Executive budget and reduce it by $800 million.  Input from President Kenny is that we are talking about a 4 ½% internal cut (approximately $3 million or 30-40 positions) which would have a very serious impact on the college.

V.  President’s Report (C. Davidson)

  • The A&S Executive Committee has met with Dean Staros to discuss the Senior Lecturer Promotion Review Process.   The A&S Executive Committee is still actively discussing alternative ways in which governance may get involved in the process. 
  • The A&S Elections were discussed and the vacancies were read.  Please volunteer for open positions.
  • Ruth Ben-Zvi pointed out that the Vice President Elect and Secretary positions are also open.

VI.  Discussion of Revisions to the Constitution and By-Laws – Second Reading (R. Ben-Zvi)

  • Same changes as last reading with a few additions/comments.
  • A-1 – Change SUNY Stony Brook to Stony Brook University
  • Change Marine Sciences to School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences.
  • Take off Division of Physical Education and add the School of Journalism.
  • A-5 – Add the word Faculty
  • Acronym used for Arts and Sciences Senate constituencies will be A&SSC
  • B1 and 2 – addition of parenthesis
  • The word ex officio will now be in italics
  • B-2 taken out because of redundancy
  • F.  Senior Lecturer Promotion Review Committee will be taken out of constitution until further discussions
  • Structure of the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee changed by constitutional amendment
  • B-4 – drop the second word “appointed”
  • B-5 – Add “the office of” in front of Enrollment and Retention Management.
  • Undergraduate Curriculum Committee acronym changed from CC to UCC.
  • C 4. and 5.  change “Senate Constituencies” to A&SSC
  • E.  Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities Policies – get rid of the comma and numeral 7.
  • No changes to By-Laws from last meeting.  R. Kerber:  President elect should be hyphenated and #7, third line, the “o” should be “no”

VII.  Old business:  no old business.

VIII.  New business:  no new business.

Meeting adjourned at 4:10 p.m.

Submitted by:

Laurie Theobalt
Secretary

_________________________________________________________________________

CASA APPEALS SPRING 2004 – Fall 2007

DATES

APPROVED

DENIED

TABLED

TOTAL

Spring 2004

16

19

1

36

Fall 2004

13

20

0

33

Spring 2005

34

23

0

57

Fall 2005

31

30

0

61

Spring 2006

33

31

1

65

Fall 2006

10

25

0

35

Spring 2007

30

21

1

52

Fall 2007

32

24

2

58

 

______________________________________________________________________

Date: April 7, 2008
To: Arts and Science Academic Senate
From: Joanne Davila, PTC Chair
Re: Amendments to the PTC Guidelines on teaching observations

Because of lack of clarity regarding what is expected for teaching observations and the consequent inconsistencies in what is included across files, the PTC requests the following changes to the guidelines.

Current guidelines:

2.4.4.2 [Note: Only newly hired faculty beginning in the 1999-2000 academic year will be expected to fulfill the following formulation. Candidates for continuing appointment and/or promotion hired prior to 1999-2000 may choose to have these criteria applied if agreed upon by both the candidate and the department. For those hired prior to the Fall of 1999, the PTC Guidelines in effect as of the Fall of 1998 apply.]

This division of the file will also contain a comprehensive evaluation of the candidate's teaching effectiveness, based on material gathered annually for all faculty members and including both undergraduate and graduate opinion, if applicable. The department should also make a periodic and detailed inquiry into students' perceptions of the candidate's teaching, including their sense of what they learned, its relation to their other skills, work in the field, or personal growth.

To this end, the documentation of teaching should include the following:

a) Numerical summaries of all op-scan forms for courses taught since the faculty's hiring or last promotion. These summaries should be clearly labeled with the course number and title, the semester in which the course was offered, the number of students enrolled in the course, and the number of responses to the questionnaire. A list of the course evaluations provided in the file should include a brief description of each course and its place in the program; whether it is required or elective; whether it draws majors, non-majors, or both; whether the candidate taught the whole course or only part of it; whether there was TA assistance and in what form.

b) Copies of individual op-scan forms with student comments. For small courses, all available copies should be provided. For large classes, representative samples should be taken.

c) Syllabi and other sample course material, such as exams and projects.

d) At least two reports of peer observations of classroom teaching. Both observers should be acceptable to the candidate.

e) Written reports from present and former students. Solicited signed letters on teaching will be placed in the Special Evaluative File.

Suggested revisions (in bold):

2.4.4.2  This division of the file will also contain a comprehensive evaluation of the candidate's teaching effectiveness, based on material gathered annually for all faculty members and including both undergraduate and graduate opinion, if applicable. The department should also make a periodic and detailed inquiry into students' perceptions of the candidate's teaching, including their sense of what they learned, its relation to their other skills, work in the field, or personal growth.

To this end, the documentation of teaching should include the following:

a) Numerical summaries of all op-scan forms for courses taught since the faculty's hiring or last promotion. These summaries should be clearly labeled with the course number and title, the semester in which the course was offered, the number of students enrolled in the course, and the number of responses to the questionnaire. A list of the course evaluations provided in the file should include a brief description of each course and its place in the program; whether it is required or elective; whether it draws majors, non-majors, or both; whether the candidate taught the whole course or only part of it; whether there was TA assistance and in what form.

b) Copies of individual op-scan forms with student comments. For small courses, all available copies should be provided. For large classes, representative samples should be taken. Representative means that the range of student opinion shall be reflected from positive commentary to reasonable critique.

c) Syllabi and other sample course material, such as exams and projects.

d) At least two reports of peer observations of classroom teaching. Both observers should be (1) selected by the department or committee that is preparing the file, (2) of higher rank than the candidate, (3) members of the candidate's department or in a related field, and (4) acceptable to the candidate. For promotions to full professor, both peer observations must be made within 1 year of the submission of the file. For promotions to associate professor with tenure, at least one peer observation must be made within 1 year of submission of the file. The other observation may have been made earlier (and may be the same one submitted for the pre-tenure review). If the candidate does not want to include the pre-tenure observation, s/he may request and must be granted a new observation to constitute one of the two required reports. In all cases, the two peer evaluations that will be submitted as part of the dossier should be provided to the candidate with signed releases by the evaluators. Regarding substantive content of the peer evaluations, it is not sufficient simply to note that the faculty member is a "good" teacher or to provide materials or data without evaluative discussion.

e) Written reports from present and former students. Solicited signed letters on teaching will be placed in the Special Evaluative File.

**Note that in the suggested revisions we have eliminated the section that exempted faculty hired before 1999 from having to follow the guidelines. Those faculty members should have all come up for tenure by now and we prefer that all faculty be held to the same standards.**