��������

The CBA does not define faculty effort for instruction, research/scholarship/creative activities (RSCA), service, professional development, or administrative work. The CBA does state that a faculty member’s evaluation is based on what they were assigned to do. So, for example, a faculty member who has obtained a research grant that “buys them out” of instructional effort is evaluated in terms of their assigned duties. In this case, they would have a reduced instructional FTE and that effort would be reallocated to the research associated with the grant activities. As another example, some program directors receive course releases to provide for the time/effort necessary in fulfilling their administrative duties. Their evaluations are based upon their proportional FTE assignments.

Department chairs (and directors of schools) have the authority to set faculty assignments. Beginning in April of the preceding academic year, the chair and faculty will agree upon the faculty member’s annual assignment, which is documented in their Faculty Assignment Letter. Any disagreements between the faculty and chair will be adjudicated per the CBA’s Article 14.

Mechanisms for faculty to receive differential assignments have existed at ��������for many years. Additionally, over the past few decades, the number of course releases given to new tenure-line faculty has increased modestly. The 2/2 teaching load for new assistant professors supersedes the previous 2.0420P Scholarship Reassignment policy, further augmenting the course releases that probationary tenure-track faculty receive. The reduced teaching load for new tenure-line faculty and the flexible assignment available to existing faculty are measures taken to assist ��������in meeting our Strategic Plan goal to expand impactful and relevant RSCA to position ��������for R1 status. It is also expected that flexible assignments will allow faculty, in cooperation with their chairs, to “play to their strengths” in setting their annual assignments.

Not necessarily. The deans have been authorized to offer 2/2 teaching loads to new tenure-track faculty being recruited now, with these assignments available to them at least until their third-year review. If the faculty member has shown good RSCA productivity on the lighter teaching load, then the 2/2 load can be extended until their promotion and tenure review.

Moving to a flexible assignment might be possible for faculty who have established a strong record warranting the new assignment. We encourage you to speak with your chair about the possibility.

No. We cannot guarantee that all faculty will be able to move to a flexible assignment.

No. Faculty will not have their assignment adjusted without consultation with their department chair.

We will not ask or require faculty to take on additional courses to make up for the reduced teaching load given to others. Your department chair must take into consideration your program’s curriculum and the needs of students in the course schedule. As long as the needs of the students and programs are met, it may not be necessary to have an offset for a lowered teaching assignment. We also are endeavoring to increase the number of faculty on campus to be able to accommodate this flexible assignment initiative.

Yes. Again, depending upon the needs of your program, a flexible assignment that incorporates more teaching or service is possible. However, it is expected that most tenure-line faculty will want to continue to have RSCA as part of their annual assignment.

Yes, associate and full professors are eligible for differential assignments. Again, it will depend upon the needs of the program and the interest and expertise of the faculty member.

Not necessarily. Continuance of a differential assignment will be dependent upon the performance of the faculty member and the needs of the program/department. Prior performance is expected to weigh heavily in a flexible assignment. Faculty seeking a research-intensive assignment will typically have a record of “far exceeds expectations” for RSCA performance. Additionally, the instructional needs of a program may not make reductions in instructional effort possible.

No. Faculty will not be forced to accept an assignment that deviates from what they have historically received each year.

As indicated above, faculty have been, and will continue to be, evaluated on the basis of their assignments and the CBA/department guidelines. Many faculty have had or are now on flexible assignments (as program directors, faculty with research buy-out, etc.). Flexible assignments are a way to provide flexibility so that faculty can pursue excellence in their RSCA, teaching, and service efforts, and it also enables greater transparency in workload assignments and evaluations of faculty. While the RSCA performance for faculty with reduced teaching loads will be expected to be greater than those on the traditional 3-3 teaching loads, the expectations for the latter are unchanged and in many cases specified in departmental guidelines.

While this flexible assignment program will not have a direct impact on instructors, the more transparent and tailored approach to setting faculty assignments has the potential to recalibrate all faculty’s FTE to represent their efforts more accurately. For example, we know that some instructors on 4/4 loads (ostensible 4 x .25FTE = 1.00 FTE) are also expected to engage in service and/or professional development efforts that are unreported in their assignments.

The CBA and any associated department guidelines are the guiding documents for assessing faculty RSCA productivity/effort. As the CBA states (18.4.b):

The annual evaluation shall include consideration of the quality and quantity of the faculty member’s research/scholarship/creative activity which is a measure of the faculty member’s contributions to the discovery, integration, or application of new knowledge, and other forms of creative activity, which is appropriately related to the faculty member’s discipline. An evaluation of quality will include an evaluation both of the publication/creative contributions and of the medium in which the work is published/presented.

However, just as a reduction of a faculty member’s instructional FTE would indicate a smaller amount of instructional effort (though not a reduction in expected quality), it would be expected that an increase in FTE in RSCA would result in an increase in the quantity of effort toward RSCA. So, for example, if your department guidelines stipulate that “meets expectations” for a .20 FTE RSCA assignment would require publication of a book chapter, then the comparable expectation for a .40 FTE RSCA assignment would be two book chapters (assuming no difference in quality of those products).

Post-Tenure Review (PTR) at UNF, per policy, considers the “level of accomplishment and productivity of the faculty member in meeting assigned duties in teaching, research/scholarship/creative activity, and service, including clinical and administrative assignments.” The policy notes that “the guiding documents for evaluating the level of accomplishment are found in approved departmental guidelines” and in the CBA. Annual assignment letters as well as the Average Annual Comprehensive Score, which factors in FTE assignments, are a required element in a faculty member’s PTR dossier.

Yes. While department guidelines are helpful in articulating the criteria outlined in the CBA in terms of disciplinary contexts and specifics, there is nothing preventing a faculty member in a department without guidelines from discussing a flexible assignment with their chair.

No. Currently, each department is encouraged but not required to develop guidelines per the CBA. Additionally, the CBA currently empowers departments with guidelines to revise their guidelines when they want. However, the administration recently proposed changes to the CBA that encourage all departments to create guidelines, and further requires that guidelines be reviewed at least once every three years. The goal in this proposal is to ensure that faculty know what is expected of them in accordance with their assignment and discipline-specific standards of excellence.

It will be important for faculty and chairs to discuss differential assignments prior to the scheduling process so that programmatic instructional needs can be addressed. Academic & Student Affairs has developed a new process for chairs to develop and deliver annual assignment letters. The expectation is that this new process will provide greater transparency and consistency in annual assignment letters. The new process and flexible assignments encourages faculty to discuss with their chairs their assignments in a proactive and thoughtful manner.

There is no immediate plan to consider such titles.

We do not anticipate flexible assignments to impact overloads. All overload assignments are in addition to the in-load assignments determined by the chair in consultation with each faculty member. As is currently the requirement, a faculty member with overload effort is expected to perform the in-load assignment the same way they would if they did not have an overload.

There is no anticipated impact to Summer assignments for 9-month faculty. For 12-month faculty, Summer assignments are subject to the same flexibility as is available to them in Fall and Spring.