Monday, February 26, 2018
I am on a committee tasked with reviewing our standards related to "presumptive renewals" of contract clinicians. The ABA seems to require that contract clinicians acquire something reasonably similar to tenure. After a number of contract renewals, clinicians' contracts generally become "presumptively renewable" and they cannot be terminated without "clear and convincing evidence." Yet our faculty still votes on these renewals. There is some debate about what the record upon which this vote is occurring ought to look like. I would like to know what your school does about renewing these contracts. Is it purely a decanal decision to renew? If a committee is charged with making a recommendation to the faculty, what is the committee deliberating about? Do they look at reports on how the clinic functions? Student evaluations? Visitation by the faculty? Is the full faculty involved in these decisions? How? Please let me know either in the comments or email me directly at [email protected] Thanks so much.
Posted by Ethan Leib on February 26, 2018 at 08:10 AM | Permalink
At FIU: Faculty vote on an initial five-year contract. For every subsequent five-year contract, faculty (clinicians, writing faculty, and academic excellence faculty) put together a binder containing teaching and service info (and scholarship, if any), student evals, statements on teaching, etc. A faculty committee is appointed to review the file and to organize classroom or other visits and evaluations, then makes a recommendation to the dean. The contract is presumptively renewable by the dean. If the dean denies renewal, the decision is subject to faculty review.
One question about which we have had some discussion is whether making contract faculty go through the process of putting together the binders (which is time-consuming) and subjecting to de novo classroom reviews detracts from the presumptive renewability or from the reasonable similarity to tenure.
Posted by: Howard Wasserman | Feb 26, 2018 9:43:29 AM