Academic Salary Administration
- Academic Salary Administration
- Salary Increase Process for Faculty and Librarians Represented by UTFA
- Progress Through the Ranks (PTR): Overview
- Administration of the PTR/Merit Scheme
- The Evaluation Process and Criteria Used in the Assessment
- Material Provided by Faculty and Librarians
- Procedure for Evaluation
- Administrative Followup
- Special Notes for PTR/Merit
- Deadlines and Key Activities
- Assessment of Merit: Research, Scholarship, Teaching, and Service Contributions
Academic Salary Administration
- Memorandum of Agreement between the Governing Council of the University of Toronto and the University of Toronto Faculty Association, Article 6, Salaries and Benefits
- Policy and Procedures on Academic Appointments
- Policy and Procedures on the Employment Conditions of Part-Time Academic Staff
- Collective Agreement Between the Governing Council of the University of Toronto and the Canadian Union of Public Employees 3902, Unit 3
Salaries Upon Appointment
Tenured/Tenure-Stream, Teaching-Stream, and Contractually Limited Appointments
The appointment and starting salaries of all full-time tenured/tenure-stream and teaching-stream appointments, regardless of rank, must be approved by the Vice-Provost, Faculty and Academic Life (on behalf of the Vice-President and Provost).
Each appointment file must include a rationale for a starting salary based on the academic unit’s current salary structure (i.e., departmental salary structure in a multi-departmental Faculty or the Faculty salary structure in a single departmental Faculty), the candidate’s relevant experience (e.g., postdoctoral training), discipline norms, and prevailing market conditions for the discipline in question. In rare cases, a sub-discipline within a discipline will command higher starting salaries owing to market conditions.
For all appointments of Full Professors and all other appointments where the starting salary is above the budgeted amount for the position, the following will be required as part of the appointment dossier:
- A standard salary curve for the entire unit mapping salaries against the age of each faculty member; and
- A data table showing the name, rank, age, highest degree and year of conferral, and salary of each faculty member of the unit.
Part-Time or Non-tenure Stream and Limited-Term Teaching-Stream Appointments
Salaries for part-time non-tenure stream professorial staff and part-time teaching-stream staff who are appointed on annual contracts of less than .76 full-time equivalent (FTE) are set at the unit level. Maximum and minimum salaries, pro-rated according to the percentage of the appointment, must be in accordance with the salary structure set in the salary increase negotiations between the University and University of Toronto Faculty Association (UTFA). See details of salary structures below. Regardless of the provisions of an individual contract, salaries must not be below the scale minimum.
According to the Policy and Procedures on Employment Conditions of Part-Time Academic Staff, appointees must be appointed to a minimum of .25 FTE to qualify for University pension and benefits and those appointed at .50 FTE or greater are eligible for research and study leave in accordance with Article 4 of the Memorandum of Agreement.
Overload Stipend Rate
The overload stipend rate is set in salary negotiations with UTFA. The current overload stipend rate is updated annually as part of the negotiations with the Faculty Association. The rate is a minimum rate to be paid to faculty with full-time appointments and retired professorial and teaching-stream faculty members.
Sessional Lecturers and Writing Instructors
The salaries for Sessional Lecturers who are members of CUPE 3902 Unit 3 are set in negotiation by the University and CUPE 3902 Unit 3 and form an integral part of the collective agreement. Information on the current salary rate for Sessional Lecturers I and II and Writing Instructors I and II may be found in Article 22 of the Collective Agreement.
One of the unique aspects of the Collective Agreement is that once promoted to the category of Sessional Lecturer II in one department, the SLII rate will apply to all other teaching assignments.
Salary Increase Process for Faculty and Librarians Represented by UTFA
Negotiation of Annual Salary Increases
Increases in the salaries of full- and part-time tenure-stream and teaching-stream faculty (including CLTAs and Instructors in the Institute of Child Studies and Athletic Instructors in the Faculty of Physical Education and Health) and Librarians are negotiated between the University and the Faculty Association. Agreements between UTFA and the University on salary increases may be multi-year or for one year only. Details of all negotiated increases are circulated to PDAD&C in a timely fashion.
Salary Increase Components
The negotiated salary increases for non-unionized academic staff and librarians have typically been comprised of two separate components: an across-the-board (ATB) percentage increase and a merit component known as progress-through-the-ranks or PTR. (However, because the across-the-board increase and the merit component are subject to negotiation, either one or both may not be applied in a particular year.). Each year minimum salary ranges are determined in relation to the ATB which is awarded. Details of the current salary ranges are listed below.
The salary ranges and breakpoints:
|July 1, 2018||July 1, 2019|
|Assistant Professor (Conditional)||$52,200||$86,300||$53,714||$88,803|
|Amount in fund per FTE below Breakpoint||$3,570*||$3,640*|
|Amount in fund per FTE above Breakpoint||$2,025*||$2,060*|
|Assistant/Associate Professor, Teaching Stream||$84,200||$86,642|
|Amount in fund per FTE below Breakpoint||$3,335*||$3,395*|
|Amount in fund per FTE above Breakpoint||$1,935*||$1,970*|
|Amount in fund per FTE below Breakpoint||$2,790*||$2,845*|
|Amount in fund per FTE above Breakpoint||$1,375*||$1,405*|
* This amount excludes the 5% set aside for allocation through the 5% merit pool.
Note: Teaching-stream faculty and librarians who commence employment on or after July 1, 2017 will receive an annualized starting salary no lower than the minimum salary for their rank plus $620 as per the memorandum of settlement for 2014-2017.
Effective July 1, 2018, the overload stipend rate is $17,544.00.
Effective July 1, 2019, the overload stipend rate will be $17,895.00.
Salary Anomaly Requests
PDAD&C #28 (2002-2003) outlines the process for making salary adjustments for academic staff. In a limited number of cases, and only under exceptional circumstances, adjustments can be made outside of the salary cycle through a salary anomaly request. In these cases requests can be made for three basic reasons:
- Merit-based retention adjustments will be considered when there is a firm offer from a competitive peer institution to a faculty member whom we strongly wish to retain. At the current time, pre-emptive adjustments will not be considered.
- To provide a mechanism for rewarding outstanding individuals whose performance it has not been possible to recognize sufficiently by the application of the Merit (PTR/5%) scheme. Adjustments in these cases are merit-based and they recognize an individual’s highly unusual accomplishments. Requests for salary anomaly adjustments will be considered solely in terms of the criteria of merit that are used in the PTR scheme in reference to the individual’s peer group. No requests for adjustment on these grounds will be considered for individuals whose PTR awards in the past have not been in the upper quartile of their unit and substantially higher than the media.
- To rectify mistakes in remuneration where a decision taken by an officer of the University in the past has inappropriately affected the salary of an individual; for example, where an administrative error resulted in an inappropriate salary. Such situations should be rare and the cost of the adjustment will be borne fully by the unit where the error was made.
In order to establish the case for an adjustment, divisions are requested to provide to the Office of the Vice Provost, Faculty and Academic Life, the following information:
- A letter from the unit head describing the rationale for the increase.
- In the case of retention adjustments, details of the offer from a peer institution.
- A current CV of the individual.
- A summary of the candidate’s PTR assessments for the last three years relative to the candidate’s pool.
- A standard salary curve for the entire unit mapping salaries against the age of each faculty member (see template below).
- A data table showing the name, rank, age, highest degree and year of conferral, and salary of each faculty member of the unit (see template below).
This template spreadsheet should be used to create the salary curve and data table.
Progress Through the Ranks (PTR): Overview
The merit component or PTR was introduced in 1973 to provide faculty members and librarians with an annual merit based award to recognize each individual’s contribution to teaching, research, and service. PTR is the only source of promotional increases for faculty members and librarians, and is based on the assumption that each individual’s rate of promotion through the ranks is a function of that individual’s cumulative MERIT over time. While there is a career path for a “typical” faculty member or librarian, no two individuals are alike. Some careers will progress rapidly and hence those faculty members and librarians will merit on average high PTR awards, and some careers will not progress and hence some faculty members and librarians will merit no PTR awards.
As illustrated in the diagram below, the PTR scheme is based on three reference points: a base, a breakpoint, and an endpoint.
The base represents the minimum salary for librarians, professorial stream and teaching-stream faculty (pro-rated to 100% for part-time appointments). The endpoint represents a faculty member’s or librarian’s salary at retirement. The rate of increase between the base and the breakpoint is greater than that between the breakpoint and the endpoint. In this way, the plan recognizes the need for accelerated salary progress in the early years of a career. However, owing to differential starting salary norms by discipline and for those faculty members and librarians with consistently high performance ratings, the breakpoint may come at an earlier stage of the career span.
The money available for PTR distribution is sub-divided into three separate funds: one for tenured/tenure stream faculty, one for the teaching-stream faculty and one for librarians. These three separate funds are further sub-divided into three pools: one for those whose current salaries are above a salary breakpoint; a second for those whose current salaries are below the breakpoint; and a third — 5% of the total PTR pool — is dedicated to a special merit pool.
5% Merit Pool: Outstanding Contributions and Rewarding Exceptional Merit in Smaller Units
Funds allocated under the 5% Merit Pool may be awarded to any faculty member or librarian. An award from the 5% Merit Pool is in addition to any PTR awarded in the unit process.
There are two purposes for the 5% Merit Pool: to reward those colleagues who have demonstrated that they are leaders in their field or who have made an outstanding contribution; and as a means for heads of small units (fewer than six individuals in a pool of academic staff members) to reward exceptional merit.
An individual’s salary level in relation to the breakpoint or departmental affiliation should not be taken into account when determining eligibility. Individuals recommended for the 5% Merit Pool should have received an assessment in their unit that would place their PTR at or near the top of the unit prior to the additional 5% Merit Pool funds being added. Each recommendation should specify clearly the outstanding contribution to the field or to teaching. Funds allocated under the 5% Merit Pool may be awarded to any faculty member or librarian. Each recommendation should specify clearly the outstanding contribution to the field or to teaching.
Funds from the 5% Merit Pool are awarded by Deans in multi-department Faculties, the Provost in the case of single-department divisions or the Chief Librarian, on the basis of outstanding performance.
Instructions on how to nominate the exceptional members of your unit for consideration for awards from the 5% merit pool will be provided by the Deans of multi-departmental divisions, by the Provost for single-department divisions, and by the Chief Librarian for all librarians.
In the decentralized budget model each academic division is responsible for providing the base budget funds that are to be expended fully on merit-driven base salary increases for faculty members and librarians. (This includes a pro-rated amount for all part-time academic staff who are to be considered for PTR on the same basis as their full-time colleagues.) As above, an award from the 5% merit pool is in addition to any PTR awarded in the unit process.
- The funds in the above- and below-the-breakpoint pools are aggregated separately into two distinct pools and awarded differentially to the members of the respective pools solely on the basis of merit. The funds from each pool may only be spent on the staff in that pool. That is, funds from one pool cannot be transferred to another pool.
- PTR increases are not an automatic entitlement for individual faculty members or librarians. The PTR process recognizes that the vast majority of individuals are advancing in their careers by consistently contributing to the advancement of the field, teaching at a high level and by serving the University and the broader community. Accordingly the award of average or median PTR will reflect the very high standard expected of all of our faculty members.
- Departments and divisions are expected to spend all the PTR funds allocated to them on merit increases. If for any reason a department or division is of the view that all the PTR funds cannot be expended, permission not to expend the entire pool must be sought from the Provost’s Office. Unexpended funds may not remain with the Department/Division.
- No faculty member or librarian may be paid less than the floor for his or her rank.
- Consistent with Provostial directive, faculty appointments effective after January 31 are considered new hires. As such, these positions are not entitled to ATB or PTR increases on July 1 of that same year.
It is important to note that it is an individual’s June 30th annual base salary (excluding stipends) at the end of the academic year that determines how the July 1st PTR award at the beginning of the academic year will be made. In other words, the June 30th salary determines into which PTR pool an individual will fall for consideration for a PTR award to take effect on the following July 1.
Annual updates on the breakpoints and the funds available for distribution in the above- and below-the-breakpoints pools by appropriate category (e.g., tenured/tenure stream; teaching stream; librarians) are provided in the salary ranges section above.
The categories of staff eligible for a PTR award are:
- Full- and part-time professorial staff (including those on contractually limited term appointments)
Those persons in the tenure or non-tenure streams with the rank of Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor and Assistant Professor (Conditional) will be considered for a PTR award.
- Full-time and part-time faculty appointed to the teaching stream (including those on contractually limited term appointments in the teaching stream)
Those persons in the teaching stream with the rank of Assistant Professor, Teaching Stream; Associate Professor, Teaching Stream; Professor, Teaching Stream; and part-time teaching-stream faculty at the rank of Lecturer or Senior Lecturer.
All categories of librarians (I to IV) will be considered for a PTR award.
Administration of the PTR/Merit Scheme
The purpose of this section is to clarify and provide guidance on the administration of the PTR scheme to make certain that the career progress of faculty members and librarians is recognized and enhanced, and to ensure that meritorious performance is appropriately recognized. Section 5 provides details on the assessment of research, scholarship, teaching, and service contributions.
The Evaluation Process and Criteria Used in the Assessment
The evaluation process for PTR awards needs to be clearly understood by all faculty and librarians. This means both that the procedures used to arrive at a judgment about each individual’s PTR award and the nature of the merit-driven career progress scheme are communicated to all academic staff. Ideally, this information should be provided at the beginning of the academic year, discussed with academic staff and reiterated at the time of evaluation.
It is essential that academic staff understand that PTR increases are relative to the performance of colleagues in the same pool — below the breakpoint and above the breakpoint. Inform academic staff that the make up of the pools changes from year to year with the addition of new colleagues and the movement of colleagues upwards from one pool to another. This aspect of the PTR scheme seems to be misunderstood by many academic staff. For example, a below-average increase should not necessarily be interpreted as a negative evaluation. It may only reflect the outstanding performance of some colleagues in a particular year.
Material Provided by Faculty and Librarians
The Annual Activity Report and Updated CV
The evaluation of an individual’s performance requires that the activities of the individual be fully set out in an Annual Activity Report and that an updated CV be provided. The completion of the Activity Report is the responsibility of the faculty member or librarian, although heads of academic units must provide guidance on what should appropriately be included in the Annual Activity Report.
The Activity Report should be more than just a listing of an individual’s research and scholarship, teaching and service contributions. In assembling the information for the activity report, individuals should be clear on the changes in activity from the previous year and should be asked to articulate the progress made in the year on work-in-progress if it has not appeared in the year. Individuals should comment on the significance of their activities, where needed. The report may be supplemented with other evidence of the significance of the activities such as reviews of monographs, or a well-developed research plan that may have been part of a grant submission. An individual should also include information on the direction of his or her research, where needed. Materials on teaching activity should include course outlines and evaluations, and can include curricular innovation and a teaching dossier. The development of a teaching dossier is to be encouraged for all faculty (further details of the kinds of contributions which might be taken into account in the assessment of an individual’s research and scholarship, teaching and service contributions is covered in Section 5).
Faculty on research and study leave must also provide an annual activity report that gives details of their progress in relation to the research and study leave proposal which was submitted prior to the approval of their leave.
Divisions should set clear guidelines on the period of reporting for the activity report. Some divisions have used July 1 to June 30 as the reporting period, with the work for the balance of the year being estimated. Others have set a different 12-month period. The reporting period should be clearly indicated and the process by which it is determined should include appropriate consultation.
Paid Activities Report
Paid Activities Report form
The University’s Policy on Conflict of Interest — Academic Staff (June 1994) requires that, as part of the Annual Activity Report, every faculty member submit a Paid Activities Report.
Normally, no PTR award should be given if the individual has not supplied the appropriate information. Chairs in multi-departmental Faculties are required to provide the Dean with a statistical summary of paid activities undertaken in their department.
Procedure for Evaluation
The Use of Committees
The Dean or Chair/Director is responsible for making PTR recommendations. This responsibility cannot be delegated; however, advice can be sought from individuals in the unit. It is recommended that the Dean or Chair/Director has an advisory committee(s) to review the activity reports. Best practice can include having separate advisory committees for teaching and scholarship. Advisory committee(s) should evaluate performance only, members should not have access to salary information of their colleagues nor should they be informed of the actual dollar amount of individual awards. The Dean or Chair/Director is responsible for allocating the actual dollar awards.
Statement from Unit Head Regarding Procedure and Advisory Committee Membership
Each unit head must provide the unit’s faculty members with a clear statement outlining the procedure to be followed for the evaluation of PTR. The statement should include a description of the mandate and membership of any advisory committees used, the relative weight of the various activities of teaching, research and service and a rationale for any exceptions, the format to be used for the Activity Report, as well as any unique aspects of the evaluation process for the unit.
Consultation With Other Unit Heads and/or Graduate Chairs
In cases where faculty are cross-appointed to another department/division or where they hold their graduate appointment outside their primary department, consultation with other unit heads and/or graduate chairs is a critical element of the information gathering process for PTR assessments. Such consultations may assist you in assessing the faculty member’s activities in relation to others in their field. Similarly they may provide an important perspective on a faculty member’s graduate teaching and supervision, particularly if this takes place on another campus.
The Balance of Teaching, Research, and Service
The PTR scheme allows each unit to determine the balance amongst the three principal components of a faculty member’s activities, teaching, research and service. This flexibility is important for recognizing the unique missions of units and the differences in agreed upon activities of individuals. Normally, for professorial staff the portion of the total PTR allocated to teaching and research is approximately equal, but in a limited number of cases, an argument might be made that an atypical weighting of activities that reflects that a different balance between teaching and research for the individual concerned is appropriate. A separate weighting of teaching and service should be made for teaching-stream staff. A teaching-stream faculty member who engages in pedagogical and/or discipline-based scholarship in relation to the field in which they teach shall be evaluated on that activity. Weighting of staff on research and study leave should reflect the research and service duties undertaken during their leave.
A change of the balance in duties requires the approval of the unit and division heads. Such an adjustment must be made at least a year in advance of the application of a modified weighting of responsibilities to the person’s Annual Activity Report. In no circumstances should a tenure-stream faculty member be fully relieved of either teaching or research activities and there should always be a service component for each individual. Such arrangements should be for a fixed period with a review of their appropriateness at the end of the period.
Point Systems and the Evaluation
Some units have employed a ten-point scheme as a model, based on four points for teaching, four points for research and two for service. This will be varied for those faculty who hold an appointment as Lecturer/Senior Lecturer (or Tutor/Senior Tutor) and for librarians whose assessment criteria will be different.
While a point scheme has a number of positive aspects there have been some untoward effects of the scheme on awards. An arithmetic evaluation of a positive score where an individual is not meeting his or her responsibilities is inappropriate. The range of points awarded should use the full scale. For example, the award of 2 on a 0-to-4 scale for teaching performance that is barely acceptable by the standards of the unit would be an inappropriate evaluation. While a score of zero points is expected to be rare, use of the full 0-to-4 scale is equally as appropriate in the evaluation of teaching as it is in the evaluation of research. It is important to use the full range of scores so that the application of the scale does not inadvertently bias the recognition of one activity over another.
While point schemes are useful indicators, they should not replace the judgment of the Dean or Chair/Director on the overall performance of the individual. If a point system is used, it should be indicative of a relative level of performance, not an absolute value that is translated arithmetically into the PTR award. If a point system is not used, the Dean or Chair/Director must still document the criteria for evaluation.
Communications Regarding ATB, PTR, and Revised Salary
Letters must be sent to each individual explaining the judgment underlying the award of PTR. The letter should provide appropriate detail of the individual’s performance and for junior faculty or librarians, the assessment should also be related to the individual’s career development. In addition to the specifics of the individual PTR award, the annual salary increase letter should include information on the dollar amount of the ATB award (which is applied to the June 30 salary before the award of PTR) and the appropriate histogram. (See the Histograms section for instructions on the preparation and completion of histograms.) Although not mandatory some units include general information regarding outstanding performance by some colleagues, so that individual performances may be put into perspective.
Individuals Not Meeting Expectations
The PTR review will help to identify those individuals with problems in their career development. The head of a unit should meet with all individuals who have been identified as having difficulties, and especially for anyone awarded a zero in research or teaching. A letter detailing the performance evaluation and suggesting ways to remedy the difficulties should follow this meeting. This may include referral to a course on teaching, or to the services of a teaching consultant, help in formulating research grants or planning a research activity or project, or other appropriate supports. Such discussions might also involve consideration of a change in duties or particular steps to remedy the difficulties. All such cases should be brought to the attention of the division head and the Provost’s Office.
For individuals who have failed to meet their duties and responsibilities over a period of time, the matter should be referred to the Dean or, in single-department Faculties, to the Provost’s Office for advice and action.
PTR is not to be used as a disciplinary tool. PTR is to be used to recognize scholarly achievement and merit, and must not be used in a punitive way. Please consult with the Vice-Provost, Faculty and Academic Life for advice on discipline and performance management if required.
Faculty members can appeal PTR decisions as outlined in Article 7 of the Memorandum of Agreement.
Special Notes for PTR/Merit
Staff on Research and Study Leave
Staff members who are on research and study leave during the academic year should be assessed with reference to the standards applicable to the leave activity and only on those criteria which are appropriate in light of the work planned for their leave. As a research and study leave plan has been approved for each individual an evaluation should take into account the degree to which the objectives of the plan have been realized or where the objectives have changed during the course of research, the degree to which the research has advanced. Some staff may remain engaged in teaching, graduate supervision and/or service activities while on a research and study leave and unit heads should use their discretion in such situations in determining what recognition is warranted in the PTR determination.
Faculty on research and study leave should be awarded a merit amount appropriate to their accomplishments and should not simply be awarded the average for the unit. The PTR amount is not to be adjusted downwards for full-time staff, despite the fact that they may have been receiving less than full salary while on leave. For part-time staff, the amount should be pro-rated to the percentage of FTE that the person normally receives when not on leave.
Staff on Maternity/Parental/Adoption Leave
With respect to PTR, the principle of no professional disadvantage should prevail for staff on maternity/parental/adoption leave. Calculations for PTR should be based on the faculty member’s work prior to and after the leave, with allowances for a longer-term review to ensure no anomalies occurred. The faculty member’s performance prior to the leave may be a good indication of the PTR for the leave period, although in cases where the faculty member was ill or unable to function at full capacity prior to the leave, it may be necessary to extrapolate over a longer period of time
Staff on Unpaid Leave
Staff on unpaid leave do not normally receive a PTR increase.
Increases for part-time staff should be determined on the basis of their annualized salaries and appropriately pro-rated.
Staff who Retired or Ceased Employment During the Academic Year
Do not calculate awards for individuals who are not currently employed by the University. Individuals who retire on or before June 30 do not receive an ATB or PTR award for the following July 1.
Rank Ceilings (see salary ranges) remain in effect for Assistant Professor and Assistant Professor (Conditional) categories. If a division or department head decides to recommend the award of a PTR increase to an individual whose June 30 salary exceeds the rank ceiling or which would result in that individual’s salary exceeding the rank ceiling, approval of the divisional head is required. Awards exceeding the rank ceiling should be reported to the Provost’s Office.
Please contact your Dean’s Office (for multi-department Faculties) or VPFAL (for single-department Faculties) at email@example.com for the 2018-19 Histogram template.
Histograms General Information
Division and department heads are responsible for the preparation of histograms showing the distribution of total PTR and for forwarding the histograms to the Provost’s Office by July 20 (please email the histogram and data file to firstname.lastname@example.org). The histograms will be reviewed by the Provost and UTFA representatives. Each staff member, except those in pools of three or fewer individuals, must receive a divisional or departmental histogram displaying the PTR awards.
Instructions for Completion of Histograms
- The histogram should reflect the total PTR including the 5% special Merit Pool awards. You should distinguish the two awards by entering each one in the corresponding columns.
- Histograms are to be completed for each division. In a multi-departmental Faculty, each department must also complete histograms.
- The Library Personnel Office will prepare histograms for the Library.
- In the electronic Excel template, there are separate worksheets for recording increases above and below the breakpoint for Tenure/Non-Tenure Stream staff, all Teaching Stream staff, and Librarians. Please report all increases for Tenure/Non-Tenure Stream staff, all Teaching Stream staff, and Librarians in dollars and increases for Other Academics (Instructors, etc.) as a percentage (please round to nearest $100 or 0.5%). This is consistent with the PTR/Merit program of each group.
- A histogram must be prepared when there are more than three individuals in a pool. In order to maintain confidentiality, awards to individuals in small pools of three or less should not be reported on a separate histogram. In multi-departmental Faculties, these individuals should, however, be included in the Faculty-wide histogram.
- Inclusions and exclusions:
- Chair: include the Department Chair where the Chair is in the department pool.
- Part-time staff: only those with appointments of 25% or more are to be reported. In each case where a staff member is part-time, the increase should be reported on the histogram as the annual full-time equivalent.
- Cross-appointed staff: should be included only in the graph of the department where their primary appointment lies. The total increase awarded to the individual should be reflected even though part of this will be provided from another department’s budget.
- Staff members on research or study leave on partial salary: should be included. Their increase should show the full PTR increase and not reflect the percentage of salary while on leave.
- Staff on maternity/parental/adoption leave: should be included.
- Staff on unpaid leaves: should not be included in the graph or in computing the average increase.
Deadlines and Key Activities
Although the University and UTFA may agree on a multi-year or single-year salary settlement, the PTR process is normally undertaken each year to reflect individual faculty members performance in a given 12-month period. In exceptional circumstances, the PTR exercise may encompass a longer time frame (e.g., two years) but the longer time frame will normally be sub-divided into the regular 12-month assessment period. Alternatively, the PTR process may be undertaken in the absence of an award. In these situations, the award will be applied to the salary once a settlement has been reached with the Faculty Association. The normal deadlines and key activities in the annual PTR assessment process are listed below.
|Date||Multi-department Faculties||Single-Department Faculties|
|By March 31:||
|By April 30:||
|By May 31:||
Assessment of Merit: Research, Scholarship, Teaching, and Service Contributions
Research and Scholarship
Advancement of the field, as is demonstrated by publications or other appropriate forms, is an important component of the PTR award. Each member of the professoriate should be engaged in research and scholarship, which can also take the form of creative professional activity. In addition, due consideration should be given to interdisciplinary activities and involvement in outreach and community engagement initiatives by faculty members. In circumstances where there is a pattern over time during which there has been no publication but only work in progress, the unit head should request a copy of the work in progress with the changes for the year clearly indicated.
Each unit will evaluate research, scholarship and creative professional achievement in different ways depending upon local culture and practice. Research and creative professional achievement should be measured not only in terms of quantity but also in terms of quality. It is critically important that faculty are aware of the criteria being used to evaluate their research and scholarship so these should be articulated in advance of the assessment process.
The relative weighting of research output may also vary by discipline. In some disciplines, publication of an article in a top-tier journal or the publication of a refereed book in a good press is the summit of scholarly achievement. In others, conference presentations, lectures, keynote addresses at international conferences and publications in conference proceedings would carry greatest weight. In some disciplines the number and value of external, competitive grants received and research contracts awarded are important indicators of scholarly activity. Similarly a patent, contributions to government policy or a juried exhibition of artistic work may each indicate significant creative professional achievement.
A five-page paper in one discipline may easily outweigh a 20-page paper in another, just as within one discipline a ground-breaking five-pager may carry more weight than two or three longer articles with considerably less impact. A good small book may be equivalent to two or three major journal articles in some disciplines. Single authorship and joint authorship are evaluated differently depending on the discipline. Monographs and edited books also receive differential weighting. An invitation to deliver a keynote lecture at one conference may represent the highest honour bestowed upon members of a discipline. A presentation at a regional conference may be far less prestigious. Certainly all of the above are part of the mix in the evaluation of scholarship: what is at essence is the number and the prestige attached to each. The judgment by the committee on the relative value of each of these activities is its most difficult task. However, this does not mean that some measure of relative importance cannot be communicated to faculty. One Arts and Science department employs a five-point scale in its evaluation of research as follows:
|5||Outstanding research international standards.|
|4||First-class research with clear evidence of impact and international recognition.|
|3||Strong research activity with a good combination of quality and productivity.|
|2||Regular research activity with the combination of quality and productivity somewhat less than the unit norm.|
|1||Some research activity, but well below the department’s norm.|
|0||No research activity.|
The development and delivery of graduate and undergraduate courses, the evaluation and supervision of students and the holding of consultations are part of the responsibilities of all members of the professorial staff. Divisions and departments should recognize in PTR awards contributions such as the development of new courses or programs, contributions towards the development of a new curriculum, the integration of research into undergraduate and graduate teaching or superior performance as measured through such mechanisms as the course evaluation. Teaching evaluation should not be confined just to the classroom or laboratory. Supervision of students, both in quality and quantity, should be assessed. Teaching may occur as well in other departments and advice should be sought from other Chairs/Directors where appropriate. Contributions to interdisciplinary and cross-Faculty initiatives should be considered and appropriately recognized.
Assessment of teaching is a critical step for constructively improving the quality of teaching across the university. In assessing a faculty member’s teaching, it is important to refer to the divisional guidelines for the assessment of teaching effectiveness. These guidelines provide a framework for the evaluation of teaching. It is important that both the Provostial and divisional teaching guidelines are made available to new faculty when they arrive at the University and to all faculty on a regular basis, including during the course of annual reviews.
Interpretation of Teaching Evaluations (From the Centre for Teaching Support and Innovation)
All courses and instructors at the University of Toronto should be evaluated by students registered in those courses each time the course is offered. The evaluations provide students with the opportunity to relate their course experiences, assessing the performance of the instructor and the qualities of the course on a numerical scale and to add qualitative comments.
In interpreting these course evaluations for promotion, tenure, and PTR, academic administrators should not merely refer to the numerical summaries but rather assess the student evaluations in the context of the more complete information in the faculty member’s teaching portfolio. Best practice requires that certain questions be asked of the evaluations by an evaluator, and addressed in the narrative of the teaching portfolio by the instructor. For example: is the course new or repeated; is it compulsory or elective; is it introductory or advanced; is it multi-sectioned or individual and what role did the instructor play in its development; is it required for a program or optional; was the instructor experimenting with new teaching techniques, means of delivery, technology or material? These kinds of considerations will encourage experimentation in teaching and ensure that no penalty will result from taking intellectual risks and recognize that many variables can be related to teaching evaluations by students.
The assessment of excellence in teaching should never be based on any single indicator, such as student course evaluations. Decisions should be based on a careful analysis of all the material filed annually in the faculty member’s teaching portfolio, of which student course evaluations form only a single aspect. The process will be fairer to the faculty member and stimulate a dialogue about teaching between the faculty member and the head of the unit.
After the course grades have been determined and transmitted to the student, the raw data and statistical summaries of the course evaluations should be made available to the faculty member. Departments should ensure that every member of the division has an opportunity to review and either keep or copy the original data submitted by the students in the course. Many divisions prepare summary statistics which allow the scores of individual faculty members to questions in course evaluations to be compared with departmental and faculty averages to enable more meaningful comparisons. This documentation is important in the preparation of teaching portfolios and as necessary information for how to improve the course. Academic units should establish mechanisms to keep course evaluations not collected by faculty members for at least one year to ensure that those colleagues absent from the University will have access to this information. For those using the centralized online course evaluation system, all of this is done automatically by default.
A contribution to University service is expected of each individual. The type and extent of the service obligation will clearly vary considerably from individual to individual. Service takes many forms and includes contributions to collegiality at the departmental level or in one of the University’s Colleges, contributions to the teaching or scholarship of others, the many services necessary to keeping an academic unit flourishing, service to Faculty or University governance and other forms of University citizenship, such as membership on one of the University’s Research Ethics Boards. It also may include service to the Faculty Association, to professional societies directly related to the faculty member’s discipline, continuing educational activities, work with professional, technical, or scholarly organizations or scholarly publications, membership on or service to governmental committees and commissions, and activities related to disseminating knowledge generated from the faculty member’s scholarship. Outside activities are not meant to include general service to the community unrelated to the faculty member’s scholarly or teaching activities. If there is any doubt as to the individual’s expectation, the head of the unit should establish with each individual an appropriate level of contribution. It should be clear to each individual that she or he has a responsibility to contribute and that this responsibility is not dependent on whether or not the individual has been requested to serve.