The Collective Agreement is crafted so that every tenurable member may proceed through the ranks with a complete understanding of specified criteria for standards of performance to move on to each stage, from renewal of probation through tenure and promotion to the rank of full professor.

In this issue of Collectively Speaking, we discuss the process of creating and revising fair and equitable standards appropriate to your discipline, keeping the success of your colleagues in mind. In the Association’s view, promotion to the rank of Professor should be achievable by any tenurable member who is hired at this university.

Standards are developed from the “bottom up”

It is vital for each unit to develop its own standards, since disciplinary expectations vary widely across the university. Creating and revising standards should not be a “top-down” process.

The Collective Agreement specifies that the criteria for awarding tenure or promotion may differ from department to department and from college to college. In all cases, however, the university standards are the minimum acceptable standards of performance (Articles 15.10 and 16.4.5).

The standards at the lowest level committee are the most stringent and specific in terms of disciplinary benchmarks, and therefore, approved department standards take precedence over college standards. Likewise, approved college standards take precedence over university standards (Articles 15.10 and 16.4.5).

The office of the VPFR has drafted suggested amendments to the URC standards for consideration. These are suggestions only, and do not predetermine your own unit’s standards.

A reasonable time to develop standards

The office of the VPFR has set a highly compressed timeline for revising current standards and creating new standards for Professors of Teaching by department, college, and university committees, with all College Review Committees submitting their standards to the University Review Committee by January 1, 2025.

It is important to start working on departmental and college standards as soon as possible. The process typically takes a matter of months for each committee to complete, so keep in mind that if a department does not develop standards within a reasonable time after being requested to do so by the College Review Committee, the CRC may use the standards developed by the other departments in the college as the basis for formulating college criteria and standards. Likewise, if a college does not develop standards within a reasonable time after being requested to do so by the University Review Committee, the URC may use the standards developed by other colleges as the basis for formulating university criteria and standards. In the absence of approved college standards, the university standards apply.

A “reasonable time” is not defined in the Collective Agreement, but in the Association’s view, three months is not reasonable for college committees to review and approve department standards, and submit college standards to the URC.

If you are in a departmentalized college, do not wait until the college develops standards before you develop your own. If you are in a non-departmentalized college, do not wait until the University Review Committee develops standards before you develop your own.

If your unit waits, you may end up with standards that are not appropriate to your discipline or to your unit’s expectations—whether that concerns disciplinary rigour, or fairness and equity.

Research, Scholarly, and Artistic Work

Standards should clearly state what is acceptable and what is required in your unit. In some disciplines scholarly books are recognized as among the most important contributions academics can make; in other disciplines, these are less important than peer-reviewed conference presentations, or community-based/-engaged research. Your unit’s standards should not be left to interpretation by members of higher-level committees who may not have expertise in your discipline.

Do you know what a normal teaching load is in your unit?

The Collective Agreement now stipulates that each unit define normal teaching loads for each rank within the unit in their Guidelines for Assignment of Duties. If your unit has not established normal teaching loads, it is time to do it. In developing your standards for tenure and promotion, it is especially important to keep in mind that assigned teaching and service should not create a burdensome workload: the success of your colleagues depends on having reasonable expectations regarding the balance of teaching, RSAW, and service. Teaching activity for most of our members entails much more than face-to-face lecturing calculated by credit-unit-equivalents: does your unit consider the full range of academic work of employees? Will your unit’s normal or expected teaching load for Professors of Teaching permit them to proceed through the ranks successfully?

Standards and workload

As a university, we have been discussing workload for some time, and it is apparent that teaching-focused positions can be subject to heavy workload expectations. Much of the work of teaching is invisible, and includes preparation, research, designing new materials, interactive activities, courses or programs, and mentoring and instructing students outside of class (especially in clinical disciplines, this may be at any time of the day or night), to name just a few activities.

Standards for Professors of Teaching

With the introduction of Professors of Teaching to the ranks with the new Collective Agreement, each unit must carefully consider its expectations.

Professors of Teaching appointments can be made only in units that have approved standards of performance for these ranks. If units wish to appoint members to these ranks, they will need to create new standards for renewal of probation, tenure, and promotion.

The people with the most knowledge about teaching-focused positions are employees currently in teaching-focused positions: this includes without term Lecturers and Instructors, and Academic Programming Appointments. Ask them about manageable, fair, and equitable workloads and what is likely to be achievable to allow Professors of Teaching to proceed through the ranks. Share and discuss your plans for your standards broadly, both within and outside of your unit. It is not a conflict of interest for members interested in making a transition to a Professor of Teaching appointment to provide advice on these new standards, or to speak to them in committee.

Here are some criteria to consider in developing new standards for Professors of Teaching:

What is the required degree for a Professor of Teaching to get tenure? Will it be the terminal degree for your discipline? Will it require a PhD? Is a Master’s appropriate for a Professor of Teaching in your discipline, even if the terminal degree is normally a PhD?

If your unit chooses to require Category 4 (Research, Scholarly and/or Artistic Work) for Professors of Teaching, consider that only 25% of these employees’ time is protected for both RSAW and service. That is not much time! Will you require peer-reviewed publications and scholarly papers as evidence of RSAW? Or, instead of publications, will you expect to see evidence of the application of peer-reviewed scholarship on RSAW? Will you accept conference presentations or workshops as primary evidence of RSAW?

The Association strongly supports members’ academic freedom in carrying out research, scholarly and artistic work, and advises against requiring Professors of Teaching to acquire and demonstrate new disciplinary expertise in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.

If your unit chooses to require Category 5 (Practice of Professional Skills) rather than Category 4 for Professors of Teaching, you might consider the following. Is it necessary or appropriate to add an additional expectation—“5.3 Educational Leadership” in Category 5, in addition to “5.1 Professional Practice” (which includes Educational Practice) and “5.2 Scholarly Work,” as is suggested in the draft URC standards? Professional Practice already includes Educational Practice in the university standards. How will your unit distinguish between requirements for “Educational Leadership,” with 5.1 Professional Practice and Category 2 (Teaching Ability and Performance)? Is there a risk of creating more demanding standards than are in place for others to whom Category 5 applies?

Indigenous RSAW, teaching, and practice of professional skills

The new Collective Agreement now includes the statement that “where applicable, units shall include Indigenous research, scholarly, or artistic work; teaching; or practice of professional skills” in the standards of performance categories (Article 15.10). If these apply to any of your members, ask them about how their work might be better reflected in your unit’s standards. Better yet, if they are eligible to do so, invite them to sit on the committee(s) responsible for revising the standards.