Policy Under Review
UW System Administrative Policy 156 (formerly ACPS 3.1)

Guidelines for Faculty Retraining, Renewal, and Development

I. Background

This paper outlines the guidelines for institutional development and implementation of a comprehensive program of faculty retraining, renewal and development as called for in UW System Administrative Policy 155 (SYS 155), Faculty Development and Renewal – The 1970’s and Beyond. The purpose of this comprehensive program is to increase the flexible and effective use of existing faculty personnel in the University of Wisconsin System.

The Faculty Retraining and Renewal Program was approved by the Legislature in the l977-79 biennial budget (see 1977-79 Biennial Budget Policy Paper 3.0, and Decision Item Narrative #201). Academic Planning Statement #3.1 (ACPS-3.1), adopted by the Regents in June 1977, provided implementation guidelines for the program. This paper updates ACPS 3.1.

II. Policy

The faculty development program is dedicated to the maintenance of academic  excellence in the University of Wisconsin System. Institutions are expected to dedicate available funds to support an effective and comprehensive program of faculty development tailored to the institution’s academic needs. In addition, in keeping with the  conditions and intent of the legislation that  supports  this program, “the purpose of this comprehensive program is to increase the flexibility and effective use of existing faculty personnel in the University of Wisconsin System.”

The overall philosophy behind the faculty retraining and renewal program should be to minimize the fiscal implications to the participant, thereby encouraging rather than discouraging participation in the program.

UW System funds will be provided to support the following general categories of activities:

  1. Retraining – Development of scholarly resources of faculty members in fields of study allied to those in which they have their primary academic preparation in order to increase the ability of institutions and units to adapt to changing curricular, student, and societal needs and to contribute to the continued professional growth of faculty.
  2. Renewal – Continued development and renewal of the expertise of faculty members in their fields of primary academic preparation in order to increase the ability of institutions and units to adapt to changing curricular, student and societal needs.
  3. Faculty development  –  Professional  growth  of  faculty  that complements special institutional and System priorities, within the context of the institutional plan, including improvement of teaching skills and/or development of the curriculum, not covered within the definition of retraining or renewal.Retraining proposals are eligible to receive matching funds from the System faculty development account on the basis of an equal match by institutional funds.Renewal proposals and faculty development proposals are eligible to receive one-quarter funding from the System faculty development account if matched by three-quarter institutional funding.

III. Procedures and Guidelines

A. Preparation of an institutional plan. 

Each institution shall review, assess and update its plan for faculty development to meet its mission requirements and academic program and staff needs in response to ongoing academic program activities, including programmatic reviews and their resulting recommendations, and in response to anticipated demands of students, society and scholarship as identified in the institution’s Ten-Year Academic Plan. Three-year plans will be submitted to the UW System Office of Academic Affairs beginning June 1, 1992 for 1993-96 and every third year thereafter.

Each institutional plan should address the following four program elements in order to make effective and flexible use of faculty personnel:

  1. Development of scholarly resources of faculty members in fields of study allied to those in which they have their primary preparation in order to increase the ability of institutions and units to adapt to changing curricular, student and societal needs.
  2. Continued development and renewal of the expertise of faculty members in their fields of primary academic preparation.
  3. Cooperative inter- and intra-institutional development of new instructional, evaluation and testing materials and systems.
  4. Improvement of teaching skills, including the management of new systems of instruction and instructional support; development of course materials; testing and evaluation techniques; and interpersonal communication in instruction.

In addition, the following guidelines are offered to assist institutions in preparing their faculty development and renewal plans and to facilitate the review and evaluation of the completed institutional plans for selective systemwide funding purposes.

The Office of Academic Affairs uses these guidelines to review the institutional plans. The outline of the guidelines is not intended to serve as a required format for the faculty development plans, but does provide a summary of those major elements that appear to be essential to any effective plan.

  1. Identify the areas of need and the objectives to be met by faculty retraining, renewal and development.[For example, the College of Letters and Sciences may suggest that it needs to increase the ability of faculty members to teach and conduct research on non-Western cultures.]
  2. Suggest faculty development activities that will be implemented during those three years in response to needs and objectives.[For example, the art department might suggest sending two faculty members to summer institutes and workshops to develop expertise in computer graphics in order to meet an identified objective of strengthening faculty expertise in the area of commercial art.]
  3. Build upon departmental or academic program strategic staffing plans which project the staffing and curricular needs and objectives for a specified period following the most recent audit and review of the department’s program(s).[For example, the history department might specify that it foresees a faculty retirement in ancient history, but will recruit in Middle East history to meet growing instructional needs, creating need for retraining of existing staff in ancient history.]
  4. Identify, insofar as possible, specific program areas of the institution most likely to be involved in responding to the stated need(s).[For example, the plan might identify an over-staffed, densely tenured physics department as a source of faculty to be retrained to teach additional sections of mathematics in order to meet a new general studies requirement.]
  5. Outline the procedures by which each proposed program element of the plan is to be implemented.[For example, the plan might specify that several approaches would be taken to renew and extend faculty expertise in the nursing program, such as institutional workshops, reduced time for selected individuals to engage in independent study, or a program of formal training for some faculty members at another institution.]
  6. Indicate the period during which each program element is to be implemented.[For example, the plan might specify that a faculty member will be retrained to conduct research into multicultural education. The academic year in which the faculty member will be retrained and when s/he will be prepared to begin research, publications, etc., should be specified.]
  7. Indicate the total costs and the source of funding for each program element.[For example, institutional workshops to update business administration faculty in computer technology might be funded by the dean’s office while a program of formal training would be supported by matching institutional and systemwide funds.]

B. Guidelines for Preparation of Faculty Retraining, Renewal and Development Proposals

  1. System guidelines. While each institution has its own guidelines, procedures, and protocols, there are a number of more specific System guidelines that individuals must adhere to as they draw up their proposals. Specific institutional policies may add to, or be more restrictive than these System guidelines.
  2. Criteria for review. Each  institution  has  established  its  own  procedures  leading  to  the selection of faculty proposals to be submitted to the System for funding. Proposals submitted for consideration at the System level must contain a paragraph abstract of the proposal and the following elements:
  3. Funding. The types of proposals that can be funded by this program are partially restricted by the terms of the 1977-79 biennial budget. Prior to the 1977-79 budget allocation, there was $100,000 in the base systemwide account for faculty development. In 1978-79, that figure grew to $210,400 through the allocation of $110,400 from the biennial appropriation of $356,000 for instructional support accounts.  Another $81,000 was added by the legislature in 1979-80 through a DIN request.The program now provides $288,100 annually for faculty development:
    • $191,400 is governed by the 1977-79 legislative intent and the additional appropriation the following year, and restricted to proposals which fall within the definition of retraining or renewal;
    • $96,700 is available for proposals which fall within the broader definition of faculty development as well as to support retraining and renewal proposals.
  4. Timetable. January 1 is the deadline for submission of proposals that are scheduled for the following academic year (July 1 – June 30).Three year institutional plans will be submitted to the Vice President of Academic Affairs on June 1, 1992 and every third year thereafter.

Vice Chancellor comments re UW System Administrative Policy 156 (SYS 156):

  • II.3., p 2       UW-EAU: Definitions of “retraining” and “renewal” unclear; definition of “faculty development” unclear.
  • II.3., p 2       UW-LAC: The “category” Faculty Development is a welcome addition.          Both “improvement of teaching skills” and the “development of the curriculum” are important opportunities which need to be made available to faculty.
  • II.3., p 2       UW-OSH: The need for a new activity is not clear, too vague, lacks distinction.               The program should be supporting substantive, ell-defined projects that exceed what most institutions typically support. Most substantive projects can be covered under either the renewal or retraining guidelines.
  • II.3., p 2       UW-STP: Providing resources for “improvement of teaching skills and/or the development of the curriculum” is commendable; however, doesn’t this new initiative within the guidelines overlap with the mission of UTIC?    Is this intended? How will faculty distinguish between the goals of this new program and the mirror-image mission statement of UTIC?
  • II.e., p 2       UW-STP:  Disappointed that System contribution reduced from 50% to 25% of projected costs; will reduce number of teaching improvement/curriculum development proposals submitted to UWS by UW-STP.
  • III.A.3., p 3 UW-STP: Cooperative interand  intra-institutional development is laudable in intent but difficult to implement   in practice … to have the same project proposal approved simultaneously by the bureaucracy of more than one campus.
  • III.A., p. 3     UW-LAC: In general, we find the guidelines for preparing the institutional plans require that we be overly specific in projecting needs and objectives.
  • III.A., p. 2 UW-STP: We appreciate having to review our institutional development plan every three years, rather than every other year under the old guidelines.
  • III.A., p. 3 UW-STP: Statement in middle has been softened, but still too restrictive, and alternative wording is proposed in paragraphs that follow: 1, identify, not specify; 2, may suggest, not specify, could, not will; 3, might, not should; 5, might, not should; 6, might, not should; 7, might, not should
  • III.A.1., p. 3 UW-OSH: 3 and 4 on p 4 should be incorporated into # 1
  • III.B.1., p 5    UW-EAU: First sentence should be kept; perhaps moved to p. 2 in first paragraph of policy statement
  • III.B.1.b., p 5  UW-LAC: Needs revising.
  • III.B.d., p 5 UW-WWR: Sentences  should  be  reversed  and  wording revised to read “It is incumbent on the institutions that their faculty development plans clearly reflect institutional needs. Proposals should be designed to meet      needs identified in the institutional faculty development   plans or, if they do not, then clear evidence should be offered on how the proposal will address the changing needs of the institution.
  • III.B.1.e., p 5 UW-EAU: Have all the changes been identified in the draft?     We suspect Design for Diversity should be underlined.
  • III.B.1.e., p 5 UW-PVL: Design for Diversity is indicated as as area that  should be given priority. A similar statement here might indicate that programs that address issues of gender might also be given
  • III.B.1.f., p 5 UW-EAU: Opportunity for summer support should be reinserted.
  • III.B.1.f., p 5    UW-LAC: Does the revised policy allow using these funds for summer income for faculty members?  Compare B.1.f. in the two documents.
  • III.B.1.f., p 5 UW-WWR: Change wording to read “… individuals who have received a full year sabbatical with partial pay [will not] will  be  eligible    to  receive   concurrent salary support under this program
  • III.B.1.g., p 5 UW-STO: Inability to combine these funds with the full-year sabbatical is too restrictive. This option would  allow greater flexibility in providing maximum retraining/renewal options. Even if salary dollars are not allowable, there should be an option for persons on sabbatical to access these dollars for travel and/or conferences.    This  decision should be left to the discretion of the
  • III.B.1.g., p 5 UW-CTR: Too restrictive. It might be better to state that individuals who  have  received  a  full  year sabbatical with partial pay during the last six years will  not  be  eligible to receive concurrent salary support     under this  program.   Why ban them for a lifetime? Or does it mean the person cannot have both programs at the same time?
  • III.B.1.h., p 5 UW-EAU: Funding for terminal degree, should be reconsidered and
  • III.B.1.h., p 5    UW-OSH: There has been no effort to change this program so that it might support proposals involving degree completion. Some consideration should be given to “grow our own” which could further the Design for Diversity initiative. Recruiting faculty, particularly in areas of high demand, will continue to be a significant challenge for the System and this kind of program could definitely help address these concerns.
  • III.B.1.h., p 5 UW-PLV: Exceptions to this rule might be considered for minority and other under representated categories of faculty.
  • III.B.1.h., p 5    UW-RIV: Wish that the guidelines could be changed so that completion of a Ph.D. was a legitimate use of these funds, given the problems that are going to face us in regard to faculty hiring, current problems in high cost areas, along with our commitment to increasing the number of minority faculty members.
  • III.B.1.h., p 5 UW-STP: I’m still not sure why we won’t  allow individuals to pursue a terminal degree under this program, particularly since demographics would indicate that in the near future we’ll be forced to hire more individuals without the terminal degree and “grow our own.”    Removing this restriction would seem to be especially important as we aggressively recruit more women and minorities.
  • III.B.1.h., p 5 Why can’t we give assistance to people in need of the terminal degree? All of the UW institutions will experience difficulty in recruiting faculty with the appropriate terminal degree. Why not help those who are already with us an opportunity to complete the degree.
  • III.B.2.h., p 6 UW-PLV: Consider adding a new element that would have institutions that submit multiple proposals rank those proposals based on their institutional priorities.
  • III.B.2., p 6 UW-WWR: Revise explanatory paragraph to read “At the system level institutional proposals will be evaluated on how well they fit within the institution’s faculty development plan or, if they do not, then how they clearly reflect changing institutional needs and on the following criteria which are not arranged in priority order.”
  • III.D., p. 8   UW-LAC: No objection to three-year rather than two-year plan, but June 1991 should be changed to June 1992, since there is not time now to complete this task.
  • III.D., p. 8 UW-STO: Often specific  training  opportunities  and locations are not known at the time of deadlines. It would be helpful to have a minimum of two submission dates per year as currently possible for the academic staff    proposals: if possible, quarterly submission deadlines would provide even greater flexibility.
  • III.D., p. 8 UW-EXT: UW-EXT faculty senate recommends that there be quarterly deadlines for submissions of proposals, thereby providing for shorter leadtimes.

UW-LAC: Some suggest greater authority be placed on individual campuses to make appropriate faculty development determinations, allocating the $288,100 to institutions and then holding them accountable. Vice Chancellors have, in the past, looked upon this as unwise, leading probably to the use of these funds for other purposes.

UW-STP: Less than acceptable proposals are not forwarded for further consideration. We shall therefore continue to send our retraining/renewal proposals to System unranked.

Issued: May 1977

Approved by the Regents: June 10, 1977

Last Revised: June 1991