Anda di halaman 1dari 5

FACULTY REGENTS REPORT 2011 Since I started my term as faculty regent, I have reached out to a number of faculty members

through email and personal interactions to get their opinions/inputs related to the Plan of Action which was uploaded in the UP website during the election period for the faculty regent: 1. Assessment and rationalization of faculty recruitment, renewal, tenure and retention 2. Faculty promotion and rewards system 3. Institutionalization of consultancies and other income-generating activities 4. Provision of additional faculty benefits and assistance 5. Institutionalization of faculty mentoring Documents relevant to the above topics were asked from the different UP CUs. In addition, CUs were encouraged to forward matters needing attention which were not expounded in the Plan of Action. Some of the feedbacks which I received from the faculty are as follows: In general, the main issue is consistency across units. A mechanism must be in place to make sure that all academic units adhere to the same procedures and standards. There are units which have very rigid requirements and there are units whose standards are less than ideal. There are also units with no clear program of recruitment and faculty development. For renewal, the requirement of taking a teaching effectiveness course for young faculty members whose scores in SET are quite low should be included. On faculty promotion and rewards system Many faculty members with good research performance get promoted despite not so good teaching performance. The use of the SET as a criterion for promotion differs among campuses. Consultancies and other forms of extension work should be encouraged. If it is institutionalized; however, the point system in the promotion scheme should consider this. For income-generating activities, UP can put up private subsidiaries (under the provision of RA 9500) that can charge market rates and employ faculty member, REPS and even staff. The BOR has already approved the Revised Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Policy of UP. Credit loading should be reviewed. If UP wants to push for more research, then it should give faculty more time and resources to do it. Queries regarding credit load for some faculty members who have other responsibilities have already been answered by the UP Legal Office. Other benefits: Expansion of the health benefits currently being received; increasing the enrolment in UPIS, UPLB Rural High School and other laboratory schools in UP to accommodate, as many as possible, children of UP employees. Institutionalization of faculty mentoring: Where possible, formation of research groups should be encouraged and mentoring will naturally happen.

Limited number of regular items. Staff with graduate degrees cannot be hired because of the lack of positions commensurate to their qualifications. Lack of housing for staff and faculty No clear-cut policies on tenure Insufficient funds for attendance to meetings

Additional suggestions/comments that were aired during the consultations: To enable collaboration among developed CUs and younger campuses, there can be System Research Program which can be led by mature CUs which have facilities and seasoned researchers. This can also be a form of mentoring. Hiring of faculty should be based on area of specialization and not necessarily on the number of students since in some cases, the ratio of faculty:students would be correct but expertise to answer specific training may not be met. Establishment of elementary school for children of staff members within the campus or in close proximity to the campus (for CUs which do not have such schools) Instrument used for promotion and the action on the promotion of the faculty at each level of evaluation should be made known to the faculty member. Points earned by the staff which have not been considered during a call for promotion can be banked and can be credited in the succeeding round of promotion. The basis for establishing the number of students registered in a class before a multiplier is applied in giving teaching load credit should be clear. The cost for improvement of facilities which are not necessarily for direct use by the students be allowed to be charged to tuition fees.

All the problems, concerns, issues, comments and suggestions gathered were presented to the BOR and were submitted to the appropriate UP official(s). Some of the replies that were received from the Vice Presidents (VPs) are mentioned below: With regard to the need for housing/additional housing on campus, according to VP Zamora, several efforts have been initiated, e.g. the preparation of a UP Systemwide Master Development Plan which will form the basis for all development efforts of the University, and talks with Pag-Ibig for on-campus and off-campus housing have already been made. During the BOR meeting on July 25, 2011, VP Zamora reported that there is already a work program for the conduct of the Master Development Plan which requires 18 months to complete. She added that the Master Plan is part of the Strategic Initiatives of the Administration. On the budget for retooling/post-graduate studies/attendance to meetings of UP staff, VP Bersales replied that funds for this purpose are already in place and that they are being managed by the different CUs. Perhaps the amount for this purpose can be increased so that more staff members can avail of this grant.

The concern aired about the possibility of using the increment in the tuition fees for projects not directly affecting the students, e.g. improvement of facilities, can be done provided that there will be consultation with the students and proposal would be presented and approved by the BOR. With regard to transparency and efficient dissemination of information, VP Amante mentioned that a seamless, connected system of information, through online documentation and retrieval is being developed with the Office of the Vice President for Planning and Development (OVPD) AVP Jimmy Caro working on this initiative. The issues concerning academic matters affecting the faculty, like recruitment, tenure, retention, renewal and promotion, were discussed with VP Giselle Concepcion. The documents pertaining to the above topics were sourced from the different campuses and will be used as reference in formulating a uniform set of rules/guidelines that can be applied to all CUs. Although not brought up in any of the consultations made, the extension of service of faculty and REPS has been discussed in the BOR meetings and need to be looked into. A number of staff who have retired from UP are still being recommended for appointment as adjunct professors or lecturers while the services of some staff are being extended. Some are given compensation while others are not. Such recommendation for extension of service should only be done under highly meritorious cases. Campuses are highly encouraged to follow their staff development plan and see to it that younger faculty are trained to take the place of the retiring faculty. A special committee under the Vice-President for Academic Affairs will be formed soon which will be tasked to study the different issues concerning faculty and REPS (promotions criteria, incentives and extension of service of faculty and REPS) and come up with the guidelines consistent across CUs. Also included in the Action Plan which I forwarded during the search for the faculty regent is the promotion of the democratic participation of all the UP personnel in university governance in matters affecting the rights and welfare of all UP constituents; hence, I also made some effort to look into the plight of the REPS. I had the opportunity to meet with the REPS of UPLB and was able to get some concerns and problems related to the: (a) (b) minimum qualification standards (MQS) specifically for researchers with MS degree and minimum requirements for appointment of research and extension staff with a masters or doctoral degree to the rank of assistant professor (research/extension), associate professor (research and extension), or professor (research/extension) for UPLB.

The details pertaining to the above concerns were also forwarded to the VP for Academic Affairs. Below are the general observations and suggestions of the REPS: (a) The REPS agree that they are expected to produce more publications than the faculty and they pose no objection to the BOR-approved guidelines re: Proposed Minimum Requirements for appointment of REPS with MS or doctoral degree; however, they noticed some unfair and biased criteria for promotion of the MS degree holders to a higher rank as compared to their colleague with PhD degree. The proposed MQS, currently being used to evaluate REPS for appointment/promotion to appropriate rank for UPLB research and extension staff for salary grades 16 and up, which require more publications for MS degree holders, is being suggested to be used only for initial appointment of REPS. However, once an MS degree holder and PhD holder satisfy the initial requirements for the rank, both of them will be required to meet the same set of guidelines and criteria to be promoted to the next higher rank. The number of publications required for the REPS to be appointed as research/extension faculty is considerably much higher than the number required for the faculty. This Minimum Qualification Standards for Determining Academic Rank of UPLB Research and Extension Staff, particularly the requirements for salary grades 20, 22 and 24 were approved by the UP BOR in its 1083rd meeting on 26 January 1995 while the Research/Extension faculty designations were approved by BOR on 21 June 1996. Any changes in the provisions therefore would necessitate BOR action. Ceiling of Grade 24 for researchers need to be reviewed and appropriate action to amend this provision has to be made.

(b)

(c)

(d)

Suggested course of action include: the development/improvement of the criteria for tenure and promotion (if need be) the preparation of a proposal for a career path for the REPS. (This might solve the problem of the Grade 24 ceiling for the researchers) Granting of automatic promotion for REPS upon finishing a degree (similar to the faculty) Additional Information: The U.P. Strategic Plan 2011-2017 has already been formulated where UPs mandate, responsibilities, guiding principles, vision and thrusts are expounded. UP Professional Schools at Fort Bonifacio Global City has been established. It will offer post-graduate courses from the College of Law, School of Statistics, College of Engineering, College of Business Administration and the Open University.

The Philippine Genome Center, a center of excellence in gene discovery and genomics research that effectively translates knowledge into applications beneficial to Philippine society has also been created.

Ida F. Dalmacio Faculty Regent 2011-2012

Anda mungkin juga menyukai