professional development programme task and finish …

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME TASK AND FINISH GROUP

Monday 24 June 2013 at 3:30pm

Ted Wragg Room, Northcote House

Agenda

1. Membership and Terms of Reference

See attached report.

2. Timeline

See attached report.

3. Supporting documentation

• Report VCCD/13/14 considered by the Vice-Chancellor’s Executive Group on 15 April 2013

• Summary of VCEG discussion on 15 April 2013

• Current PDP documentation (also available from www.exeter.ac.uk/staff/employment/academicroles/youteachandresearch/lecturer/professionaldevelopmentprogrammepdp/)

• Procedure for non-confirmation of appointment (from agreed Conditions of Employment)

• 2010/11 proposed changes to VCEG (dated January 2011 – not implemented)

• Background to PDP and current statistics

• Education and Scholarship Career Pathway (agreed in 2011) – see http://www.exeter.ac.uk/staff/employment/academicroles/youteach/

• UCU submission

4. Purpose of this meeting

The purpose of the first meeting is to review the strengths and weaknesses of the current PDP scheme – both content (ie the targets themselves) and procedural.

Also in attendance for this meeting: Professor Robert van de Noort, Dean of the College of Social Sciences and International Studies, to represent the views of College Deans.

5. Next steps

To consider whether to invite staff who have successfully completed the PDP (ie current Senior Lecturers and Associate Professors) to submit comments on their experience of the PDP via an online questionnaire.

Survey best practice at other Russell Group Universities.

6. Next meeting

The second meeting of the Task and Finish Group will take place on Monday 1 July at 10am in Ted Wragg Room, Northcote House.

http://www.exeter.ac.uk/staff/employment/academicroles/youteachandresearch/lecturer/professionaldevelopmentprogrammepdp/

http://www.exeter.ac.uk/staff/employment/academicroles/youteachandresearch/lecturer/professionaldevelopmentprogrammepdp/

http://www.exeter.ac.uk/staff/employment/academicroles/youteach/

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMEN T PROGRAMME TASK AND FINISH GROUP, 24 June 2013

MEMBERSHIP AND TERMS OF REFERENCE

Membership

Professor Stephen Rippon (Chair; Dean of Graduate Research)

Professor Andrew Thorpe (Associate Dean Research, College of Humanities)

Professor Trevor Bailey (Associate Dean Education, College of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences)

Professor Wendy Robinson (Head of Discipline, Graduate School of Education; Associate Dean Education (Designate), College of Social Sciences and International Studies)

Professor Jo Little (Head of Discipline, Geography, College of Life and Environmental Sciences)

Dr Dilly Fung (Head of Academic Development, Educational Enhancement)

Ailsa Mcgregor (Project Lead for Athena SWAN)

Dr Lindsay Stringfellow (ASA Representative, University of Exeter Business School)

Lisa Pacey-Wonnacott (HR coordinator; HR Business Partner, College of Social Sciences and International Studies)

Terms of Reference

To make recommendations to the Vice-Chancellor’s Executive Group on the probation and career development arrangements for Lecturers in the Education and Research job family through the Professional Development Programme for new Lecturers.

The recommendations should ensure:

• that PDP targets are appropriate to the academic standards and objectives of the University in the developing higher education environment;

• best practice in equality and diversity;

• appropriate comparability across job families with other progression arrangements for staff in academic roles; and

• appropriate weight is given to education criteria alongside excellence in research.

The recommendations should also clearly define the responsibilities of each participant (College Deans, Heads of Discipline, Academic Leads, PDP Lecturers, Human Resources and Deputy Vice-Chancellors/VCEG) and the training and administrative and professional support each of these roles will need to undertake these responsibilities effectively.

The role of the annual Performance and Development Review in the Professional Development Programme should also be clearly defined.

The review should also take account of best practice across the sector.


TIMELINE

1. First meeting

Monday 24 June 2013


Professor Robert van de Noort, Dean of the College of Social Sciences and International Studies, will attend this meeting to represent the views of College Deans.

Apologies: Professor Andrew Thorpe, Ailsa Mcgregor

2. Second meeting

Monday 1 July 2013

To develop recommendations on the appropriate targets to be included in the Professional Development Programme at each “milestone” – ie the final targets and interim targets.

3. Third meeting

September 2013 – date to be confirmed

To develop recommendations on the procedural features of the Professional Development Programme – including specifying roles and responsibilities – to ensure that performance and progression is managed effectively and that concerns are identified and addressed at the earliest opportunity.

To draft and agree final report to VCEG.

4. Submit report to VCEG in October 2013.


SUMMARY OF VCEG DISCUSSION

The Vice-Chancellor’s Executive Group considered the Human Resources paper VCCD/13/14 at its meeting with College Deans on 15 April 2013.

The paper proposed setting up a Task and Finish Group to review of the existing Professional Development Programme (PDP) for newly appointed Lecturers in the Education & Research job family, and of the progression and career development criteria of staff in this job family from grades F to H and beyond.

VCEG agreed that there was a need for an urgent review of PDP targets. However, the Group noted that it will be challenging to do this within the timeframe set out in the paper (ie implementation October 2013). In particular, College Deans were concerned that individuals who have already been recruited for the autumn will have had the current procedures outlined to them already.

The report raised the question whether the current criteria used for assessing progress at the end of the five years, which provides only for a “Pass/Fail” assessment, was appropriate and whether there should be an opportunity to offer a Lecturer (E&R) post to individuals who have demonstrated promising progress at the end of five years, but have not yet met all the criteria for promotion to Senior Lecturer. VCEG concluded that Lectureships should not become more substantive posts, but should remain a five-year route to Senior Lecturer.

VCEG considered that there needed to be effective processes for managing underperformance for the PDP to work effectively. It was noted that the PDR process will be owned in future by Heads of Discipline. One of the key aims of any new arrangements for the PDP will be to ensure that issues are overcome by Year Five, with proper records kept during the probation period. VCEG considered that standard forms that log meetings at certain key points would be helpful and it was noted that Heads of Discipline will require suitable training.

VCEG considered that it would be very useful to identify best practice across the sector. This will provide essential background information for the review so that the new arrangements are referenced against sector leaders.

It was noted that currently there is a potentially huge shift in performance required between Years Three and Five on winning research grants and on publications, which can be problematic.

VCEG agreed to commission the review of the E&R PDP and establish a Task and Finish Group (with Terms of Reference and Membership as set out in the paper – with the additions noted above) which would report by October 2013 in time for next wave of appointments (ie November, December 2013). It was agreed that the Task and Finish Group should also include one or more Heads of Discipline and a specialist on Athena SWAN.

VCEG noted the recommendation in the paper to review career progression in the Education and Research job family beyond Senior Lecturer. It was agreed that post-PDP promotions need to be reviewed urgently and that there is a perception that taking on management roles can hold back promotion which needs to be disputed.

VCEG considered that there needed to be a better promotion system for E&S staff. At the moment, the probationary period is only one year and there is a lack of clarity about the criteria. It was noted that Suzanne Middleton was in the process of bringing together full data on E&S staff for consideration by VCEG. It was noted that the PRG process next year will be interrogating the baselines of all Colleges and Services, including the number of E&S staff in Colleges.

VCEG noted that some immediate adjustment to guidance, training and approach to PDR will be made to address issues raised by the Britten Review, but an in depth review of PDR will be conducted when the new HR Director is in post.

VCEG agreed that the following targets and procedures need to be reviewed (separately): a) E&R PDP b) E&S Probation, and c) PDR.


MEMBERSHIP AND TERMS OF REFERENCE

Membership

Professor Stephen Rippon (Chair; Dean of Graduate Research)

Professor Andrew Thorpe (Associate Dean Research, College of Humanities)

Professor Trevor Bailey (Associate Dean Education, College of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences)

Professor Wendy Robinson (Head of Discipline, Graduate School of Education; Associate Dean Education (Designate), College of Social Sciences and International Studies)

Professor Jo Little (Head of Discipline, Geography, College of Life and Environmental Sciences)

Dr Dilly Fung (Head of Academic Development, Educational Enhancement)

Ailsa Mcgregor (Project Lead for Athena SWAN)

Dr Lindsay Stringfellow (ASA Representative, University of Exeter Business School)

Lisa Pacey-Wonnacott (HR coordinator; HR Business Partner, College of Social Sciences and International Studies)

Terms of Reference

To make recommendations to the Vice-Chancellor’s Executive Group on the probation and career development arrangements for Lecturers in the Education and Research job family through the Professional Development Programme for new Lecturers.

The recommendations should ensure:

• that PDP targets are appropriate to the academic standards and objectives of the University in the developing higher education environment;

• best practice in equality and diversity;

• appropriate comparability across job families with other progression arrangements for staff in academic roles; and

• appropriate weight is given to education criteria alongside excellence in research.

The recommendations should also clearly define the responsibilities of each participant (College Deans, Heads of Discipline, Academic Leads, PDP Lecturers, Human Resources and Deputy Vice-Chancellors/VCEG) and the training and administrative and professional support each of these roles will need to undertake these responsibilities effectively.

The role of the annual Performance and Development Review in the Professional Development Programme should also be clearly defined.

The review should also take account of best practice across the sector.


TIMELINE

1. First meeting

Monday 24 June 2013


Professor Robert van de Noort, Dean of the College of Social Sciences and International Studies, will attend this meeting to represent the views of College Deans.

Apologies: Professor Andrew Thorpe, Ailsa Mcgregor

2. Second meeting

Monday 1 July 2013

To develop recommendations on the appropriate targets to be included in the Professional Development Programme at each “milestone” – ie the final targets and interim targets.

3. Third meeting

September 2013 – date to be confirmed

To develop recommendations on the procedural features of the Professional Development Programme – including specifying roles and responsibilities – to ensure that performance and progression is managed effectively and that concerns are identified and addressed at the earliest opportunity.

To draft and agree final report to VCEG.

4. Submit report to VCEG in October 2013.

UNIVERSITY OF EXETER VCCD/13/14

VICE-CHANCELLOR’S EXECUTIVE GROUP, 15 April 2013

REVIEW OF PDP AND PROGRESSION AND CAREER DEVELOPMENT FOR THE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH JOB FAMILY

Executive Summary

VCEG approval is sought to commission a review of the existing Professional Development Programme (PDP) for newly appointed Lecturers in the Education & Research job family, and of the progression and career development criteria of staff in this job family from grades F to H and beyond.

PDP arrangements

The current PDP arrangements for newly appointed Lecturers (Education and Research) have been in place since late 2002.The programme, which may last up to five years, provides for lecturers to be promoted to Senior Lecturer on successful completion of the programme, which also acts as a five year probationary period for new appointees. The programme requires lecturers to achieve a set of research, education and administrative/management targets which they are given on joining the University. In practice, generic targets are used depending on whether the lecturer is from a Humanities, Social Sciences or Science-related discipline. If they are not successful in meeting the targets, an individual could have their employment terminated. The PDP does provide for individuals to be “fast tracked” and promoted to Senior Lecturer before they have completed five years’ service, if they have met the targets.

The PDP is seen to have a number of positive features for Colleges and individual academics, including:

• A common set of clear criteria against which to review new academics’ development and performance;

• An established route for promotion to Senior Lecturer for new appointees, providing a career pathway, which many other Higher Education institutions do not have;

• Providing an incentive for new appointees to focus strongly on research during the early years of their career at Exeter.

Informal reviews of the current arrangements have, however, identified some challenges in respect of the effectiveness of the PDP programme. These include:

• The current suite of targets in the PDP has not been substantively amended for many years. The revised Human Resources Strategy approved by Council in April 2011 also included the target “PDP targets for Education will be revised to make them as meaningful and challenging as those that already exist for research”. Given membership of the Russell Group, Exeter’s Top 10 status and the changing research agenda for Exeter and the HE sector, it has been questioned whether the targets used, particularly the research-related targets, remain appropriate for new Lecturers. Inter alia, the current requirement is for Lecturers to achieve two 2* and two 3* publications by the end of their five year probationary period. The question as to whether this target is appropriate and sufficiently challenging from an institutional perspective is raised with increasing frequency. Although there is the facility to amend the standard targets when a new academic is appointed and joins the Professional Development Programme, in practice, the standard suite of targets is used, varying only by broad discipline area (Science or Humanities etc);

• The current targets used in relation to Teaching have been criticised as too vague and insufficiently robust. There is no reference to Employability, for example, in the suite of targets;

• The current criteria used for assessing progress are effectively both probation and promotion criteria. In essence, at the end of the five years, it is a “Pass/Fail” assessment that is made. It

has been questioned whether there should be an opportunity to offer a Lecturer (E&R) post to individuals who have demonstrated some promising progress at the end of five years, but have not yet met all the criteria for promotion to Senior Lecturer. The current arrangements do not provide for such an opportunity. Providing such an opportunity would have drawbacks and may encourage some tough decisions on individual academic performance to be avoided. However, there may be value in the debate at least taking place on whether the current single mechanism for progression is the only appropriate one;

• The overall process is seen as a “HR process” and is not readily owned by the Colleges in some cases. A significant number of cases have arisen where no discussion about the targets or reviews of progress has been held in the College by the relevant Academic Lead or Head of Department with the individual Lecturer in the first year or even two years of their appointment. This has led to an increasing number of situations where the probationary period has been extended or a highly flexible approach has been adopted in respect of assessing whether an individual academic has achieved the requisite targets;

• The circumstances in which individual Lecturers who have not met the requisite targets for promotion to Senior Lecturer (E&R) could be transferred to Lecturer or Senior Lecturer (E&S) are insufficiently clear and therefore the approach is not consistent.

With a new cohort of Lecturers due to commence employment with the University on the PDP in September/October and the closing of the current REF window, it is felt that it is an appropriate time for a thorough review and evaluation of current arrangements to be undertaken.

Progression and Career Development for staff in the Education and Research Career Family

The Task and Finish Group on Progression and Career Development through Education and Leadership met between May and September 2011 to review the progression and career development of staff in academic roles through their contribution to Education, Scholarship and Leadership, with particular focus on staff in the Education and Scholarship job family.

This led to the development of a structured career path for staff in the Education and Scholarship job family, allowing progression from grade E through to Professor, subject to satisfying defined progression criteria1. Staff in the Education and Scholarship job family were notified of the new arrangements in January 2012.

In developing its recommendations for the Education and Scholarship job family, the Task and Finish Group was asked to ensure “appropriate comparability across job families and with other progression arrangements for staff in academic roles.” The Group made the following comments and recommendations in its final report:

• “The Group noted that current criteria for promotion to Associate Professor (Education and Research) and Professor (Education and Research) make no reference to Education criteria. While the Group recognised that staff following this career pathway will continue to be promoted on the grounds of excellence in research, it was also considered important that the promotion criteria should specify minimum standards for Education.”

• “The [new] criteria [for Education and Scholarship]... are more detailed than the PDP criteria and are spread across different headings, the language from the two documents are not aligned. While the Group recognise that the PDP criteria should not be identical to the [new] criteria... (since one is assessing progression on the grounds of Education and Research and the other on the grounds of Education and Scholarship) VCEG is asked to consider expanding the Education criteria in the PDP in the light of these recommendations.”

These recommendations were endorsed by the Vice-Chancellor’s Executive Group. It was hoped that a second Task and Finish Group would be established in 2012 to progress a review of progression for staff in the Education and Research job family but unfortunately this timetable slipped. The December 2012 meeting of the Academic Staff Development Steering Group noted the importance of this review to the University’s Education Strategy, in ensuring that all staff engaged in teaching meet competency standards.

Academic progression is an essential element of equality and diversity. This is particularly relevant to the Athena SWAN initiative for STEM colleges but is of course important to the whole University.

A system of academic progression which is based on transparent criteria will significantly contribute to this, alongside the academic PDR and training of Heads of Discipline.

Recommended scope and approach to conducting a review.

VCEG is recommended to establish a Task and Finish Group to review PDP and the progression and career development of staff in the Education and Research job family with the terms of reference and membership set out below. It is suggested that the Group should complete its review by the end of this academic year.

The following terms of reference are recommended:

To make recommendations to the Vice-Chancellor’s Executive Group on:

• the Professional Development Programme for new Lecturers in the Education and Research job family.

• the progression and career development of staff in the Education and Research job family, ensuring:

o best practice in equality and diversity;

o appropriate comparability across job families with other progression arrangements for staff in academic roles; and

o appropriate weight is given to education criteria alongside excellence in research.

It is also recommended that the review group take account of the following:

1. PDP for Education and Research

a) PDP was introduced in 2002/3 and, after 10 years, a review of its purpose and efficacy is appropriate.

b) In that period, there have been several reviews of the research criteria in the PDP in particular taking account of the changing requirements of the RAE and REF.

c) There have also been some concerns about the application of the PDP in Colleges – particularly the communication of research targets and feedback on performance, which in turn have led to concerns about whether termination of employment would be fair in these cases.

d) At present, the PDP provides either for progression or dismissal – there is no provision for a Lecturer to remain on grade F if they meet the criteria for a Lecturer but fall short of the criteria for Senior Lecturer. Is this a position the University wishes to maintain?

2. Career Progression

a) Progression from Grade F to Grade G (Lecturer to Senior Lecturer): the Professional Development Programme provides for automatic progression within a 5 year development period, subject to satisfying – on a “balanced scorecard” - both the “interim” and “final” progression criteria, which includes achieving Fellowship status of the Higher Education Academy either through PCAP or ASPIRE. The Academic Staff Development Steering Group questioned whether a Lecturer would be permitted to progress if they had met or exceeded the other criteria but failed to achieve Fellowship status.

b) Progression from Grade G to Grade H (Senior Lecturer to Associate Professor): the criteria for promotion to Associate Professor on the grounds of research2 were agreed in 2006. As the previous Task and Finish Group noted, these criteria make no reference to Education.

c) Progression from Grade H (Associate Professor) to Professor: the published criteria for promotion to Personal Chair (Education and Research) refer only to "outstanding distinction in their subject and who carry a substantial measure of academic responsibility”3.

Review group membership and reporting arrangements

1 The membership should comprise:

• Dean, to chair

• Associate Dean (Education)

• Associate Dean (Research)

(representation from College Executives should include both HASS and STEM)

• Representative(s) of Human Resources, to coordinate

• Representative(s) of Education Enhancement

• ASA representative

• Representation from the 2011 Task and Finish Group on Progression and Career Development for Education and Scholarship

2 There would be value in including Heads of Discipline – one from HASS colleges and one from STEM colleges – but, while these will have been identified by the time the proposed Task and Finish Group begins its work, they will not formally take up this role until August 2013. Despite this, VCEG may wish to nominate one or two Heads of Discipline (Designate) to participate in the Task and Finish Group.

3 With respect to the proposed term of reference “comparability across job families with other progression arrangements for staff in academic roles”, it should be noted that the progression arrangements for staff in the Research job family have not been reviewed since the new grading scheme was introduced a the end of 2006. After completion of this review for the Education and Research job families, it is recommended that a review of the progression arrangements for the Research job family be commissioned. VCEG agreed that the changes introduced for the Education and Scholarship job family be reviewed after two years, so Human Resources will review the changes introduced in January 2012 with College Executives at the end of the 2013/14 University year.

4 The review group would be required to consult with all Colleges, ASA, the trade unions and the Equality and Diversity Group in respect of the current arrangements.

5 Proposals for developing or changing the existing arrangements for PDP would be presented to VCEG as a priority so that agreed proposals would then be implemented for new Lecturers embarking on the PDP in Autumn 2013.The remainder of the review should be completed by October 2013.

Andrew Johnson Human Resources April 2013

1 The new career pathway can be viewed at www.exeter.ac.uk/staff/employment/academicroles/youteach/alect/careerpathway/

2 www.exeter.ac.uk/staff/employment/academicroles/youteachandresearch/associateprofessor/gradingprogression/ 3www.exeter.ac.uk/staff/employment/academicroles/youteachandresearch/associateprofessor/gradingprogression/

http://www.exeter.ac.uk/staff/employment/academicroles/youteach/alect/careerpathway/

http://www.exeter.ac.uk/staff/employment/academicroles/youteachandresearch/associateprofessor/gradingprogression/

http://www.exeter.ac.uk/staff/employment/academicroles/youteachandresearch/associateprofessor/gradingprogression/


SUMMARY OF VCEG DISCUSSION

The Vice-Chancellor’s Executive Group considered the Human Resources paper VCCD/13/14 at its meeting with College Deans on 15 April 2013.

The paper proposed setting up a Task and Finish Group to review of the existing Professional Development Programme (PDP) for newly appointed Lecturers in the Education & Research job family, and of the progression and career development criteria of staff in this job family from grades F to H and beyond.

VCEG agreed that there was a need for an urgent review of PDP targets. However, the Group noted that it will be challenging to do this within the timeframe set out in the paper (ie implementation October 2013). In particular, College Deans were concerned that individuals who have already been recruited for the autumn will have had the current procedures outlined to them already.

The report raised the question whether the current criteria used for assessing progress at the end of the five years, which provides only for a “Pass/Fail” assessment, was appropriate and whether there should be an opportunity to offer a Lecturer (E&R) post to individuals who have demonstrated promising progress at the end of five years, but have not yet met all the criteria for promotion to Senior Lecturer. VCEG concluded that Lectureships should not become more substantive posts, but should remain a five-year route to Senior Lecturer.

VCEG considered that there needed to be effective processes for managing underperformance for the PDP to work effectively. It was noted that the PDR process will be owned in future by Heads of Discipline. One of the key aims of any new arrangements for the PDP will be to ensure that issues are overcome by Year Five, with proper records kept during the probation period. VCEG considered that standard forms that log meetings at certain key points would be helpful and it was noted that Heads of Discipline will require suitable training.

VCEG considered that it would be very useful to identify best practice across the sector. This will provide essential background information for the review so that the new arrangements are referenced against sector leaders.

It was noted that currently there is a potentially huge shift in performance required between Years Three and Five on winning research grants and on publications, which can be problematic.

VCEG agreed to commission the review of the E&R PDP and establish a Task and Finish Group (with Terms of Reference and Membership as set out in the paper – with the additions noted above) which would report by October 2013 in time for next wave of appointments (ie November, December 2013). It was agreed that the Task and Finish Group should also include one or more Heads of Discipline and a specialist on Athena SWAN.

VCEG noted the recommendation in the paper to review career progression in the Education and Research job family beyond Senior Lecturer. It was agreed that post-PDP promotions need to be reviewed urgently and that there is a perception that taking on management roles can hold back promotion which needs to be disputed.

VCEG considered that there needed to be a better promotion system for E&S staff. At the moment, the probationary period is only one year and there is a lack of clarity about the criteria. It was noted that Suzanne Middleton was in the process of bringing together full data on E&S staff for consideration by VCEG. It was noted that the PRG process next year will be interrogating the baselines of all Colleges and Services, including the number of E&S staff in Colleges.

VCEG noted that some immediate adjustment to guidance, training and approach to PDR will be made to address issues raised by the Britten Review, but an in depth review of PDR will be conducted when the new HR Director is in post.

VCEG agreed that the following targets and procedures need to be reviewed (separately): a) E&R PDP b) E&S Probation, and c) PDR.

University of Exeter Conditions of Employment – June 2008 19

APPENDIX D1 PROCEDURE FOR NON-CONFIRMATION AND DISMISSAL WITHIN THE PROBATIONARY PROCEDURE (FORSTAFF IN THE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH JOB FAMILY) 1 No later than the expiry of the period of probation, the College Dean will submit a written

report to the appropriate Deputy Vice Chancellor. At least one week prior to submitting the report to the Deputy Vice Chancellor, the College Dean will send a copy to the member of staff. The member of staff may submit their own written comments to the Deputy Vice Chancellor, via their College Dean.

2 Upon receipt of the written submissions, the Deputy Vice Chancellor may confirm the appointment and the Director of Human Resources will confirm this in writing. The Deputy Vice Chancellor may also ask for further written evidence from the College and/or member of staff prior to making a decision. Any further evidence requested and submitted will be copied to the College Dean and member of staff.

3 Alternatively, the Deputy Vice Chancellor may refer the decision to a panel chaired by a Deputy Vice Chancellor; the other members of the panel will be drawn from current College Deans and Directors of Research and current and former Deputy Vice Chancellors and Deans. The member of staff will be given a minimum of 14 days’ notification of the date of the meeting and warned that their on-going employment is at risk. The member of staff may be accompanied by a trade union representative or fellow worker. The College Dean and the member of staff may submit further written evidence. All papers will be circulated at least 7 days prior to the date of the meeting. The panel will hear evidence from the College Dean and may call other witnesses to attend. The panel may be advised by a representative of the Director of Human Resources.

4 The panel may confirm the appointment or agree that the appointment should not be confirmed. In the latter instance, the Director of Human Resources will write to the member of staff within 7 days of the meeting to advise of the decision and to give notice of dismissal. This letter will also advise of the right of appeal and the procedure to be followed to make an appeal. The member of staff may exercise their right of appeal by writing to the Director of Human Resources within 14 days of the date of the notification.

5 The appeal will be considered by a panel who have not previously been involved in the decision, comprising a Deputy Vice Chancellor, a lay member of Council and a member of Senate. The member of staff will be given a minimum of 14 days’ notification of the date of the meeting. The member of staff may be accompanied by a trade union representative or fellow worker; the University’s case may be presented by a representative of the Director of Human Resources or the University’s solicitor. The University and the member of staff may submit further written evidence. All papers will be circulated at least 7 days prior to the date of the meeting. The appeal panel will follow the University’s standard appeal procedure at the hearing and the decision of the appeal panel will be final.

6 The University reserves the right to invoke this procedure at any time during the period of probation where concerns about the member of staff’s performance, competence, attendance or conduct which may lead to a decision that the requirements for confirmation of appointment have not been met.

Professional Development Programme Framework (revised January 11)

Research and Scholarship

Science and Engineering Social Science, Humanities and Business

By the end of year 3

To have earned as Principal Investigator at least one major peer-reviewed grant award at a level agreed by the Associate Dean for Research (ADR).

As Principal/Corresponding Author to have published (or had accepted) at least two peer reviewed journal articles assessed by the research output monitoring process to be of at least 2* quality.

To have submitted at least two grant applications assessed by the Associate Dean for Research (ADR) and/or the funding body as internationally competitive. These should normally be as Principal Investigator, although they may be as Co-Investigator if the ADR assesses your contribution to have been of particular significance. As Principal Author to have published (or had accepted) at least two peer reviewed journal articles assessed by the research output monitoring process to be of at least 2* quality. Alternatively, submission of a book manuscript to a publisher approved by the ADR.


To have a sustainable research programme having won further grant income at a discipline-specific level consistent with College targets. Consideration will also be given to contributions as co-investigator to large collaborative research awards. Evidence should also be presented that competitive grant applications are being submitted on a regular basis in order to sustain an active research programme.

To have published (or had accepted) 4 items of sufficient quality for inclusion in the REF with a GPA of at least 2.5*.

Supervise a minimum of one PhD student as principal supervisor and a minimum of one PhD student as co-supervisor

To have a sustainably funded research programme having obtained research funding to a discipline-specific value, agreed by the ADR, that is consistent with current College targets. Evidence should also be presented that competitive grant applications are being submitted on a regular basis in order to sustain an active research programme, or that an equivalent contribution has been made to the College to provide funds to support research activity (the normal expectation is that staff will have submitted four internationally competitive grant applications, of which at least two must have been as Principal Investigator, during the probation period).

To have published (or had accepted) 4 items (or equivalent) of sufficient quality for inclusion in the REF with a GPA of at least 2.5*.

Supervise or Co-Supervise at least one PhD student.

Education

Confirmation of probation requires that staff will have had teaching commitments consistent with College workload models, and that minimum standards and expectations have been achieved (e.g. assessed work returned within University guideline limits). In addition, staff will have met the following targets (which map on to the Higher Education Academy Professional Standards Framework headings.

Demonstrates a positive commitment to student learning By Year 3, Assumed the role of Personal Tutor (or equivalent pastoral role) to at least the minimum College standards.

By Year 3, Received good student feedback, in accordance with College benchmarks, with evidence of excellence in some if not all areas.

By Year 5, Sustained good student feedback.

Demonstrates engagement with and responsiveness to Peer Review, Evaluation and Feedback By Year 3, received good peer evaluation of teaching and related activity

By Year 5, demonstrated external impact of teaching related activity (e.g. as external examiner, speaker at national education conferences or external teaching development funding)

Demonstrates commitment to and engagement in Teaching, Learning and Curriculum Development By Year 3, Developed learning and assessment materials, including technology enhanced materials, to an excellent standard

By Year 5, Made a demonstrable contribution to pedagogical practice at subject or college level, including academic processes of programme design and review

By Year 5, Engaged with Quality Assurance and Enhancement processes and (where appropriate) external accreditation processes

Education Demonstrates integration of Teaching, Scholarship and Research By Year 3, use of own research and scholarship in teaching and student learning

By Year 5, evidenced integration of own and others’ research in teaching and student learning

Demonstrates personal commitment to academic and professional development By Year 3, Gained at least Fellowship status of the Higher Education Academy

By Year 5, Demonstrated evidence of own professional development related to the student learning experience and/or institutional policies and initiatives, consistent with HEA Professional Standards (e.g. through relevant positions of responsibility, attending and delivering courses and workshops)

Demonstrates Academic Leadership and Management By Year 3, Successfully undertaken module leader/convenor role (or equivalent level of responsibility)

By Year 3, evidenced significant contribution to one of the key education metrics (e.g. Student Employability) as prioritised by Academic Lead/Associate Dean of Education

By Year 5, evidenced contribution to University and College strategies relevant to Education (including international student experience and student recruitment)

Impact & Internationalisation


Presentation of at least two pieces of work at an international conference where poster or paper submission is subject to peer review, or to have received invitations to present research work.

To have taken part in at least one public engagement related to your research at local or national level.

To provide evidence of specific activities that support the University's Internationalisation Strategy, either through partnership engagement, promoting study abroad objectives and/or international recruitment, participation in the International Exeter Summer school or similar in conjunction with the International Office.


To have taken part in at least two further public engagements related to your work. Where possible, be able to evidence the relationship between your research and the impact this has had in the public domain.

To engage with a collaborative research partnership with an International Academic Institution recognised as being of high quality and in the strategic interests of the University.

Invited/Offered presentation of at least two additional pieces of work developed at the University of Exeter at an academic conference of international standing.

Other Significant Contributions to the University By the end of year 5

To perform effectively in a range of leadership/ management duties as defined by the College.

Where there are opportunities for this activity in the particular unit, to act as a mentor for research fellows/junior colleagues having undertaken appropriate training for this role.

Name: ………………………………………………….

College: ………………………………………………….

*I confirm that I wish to remain on my existing PDP targets and can confirm the discipline-specific value of the research targets remain as specified below:

Agreed 3 year research targets:


*I wish to transfer to the revised PDP targets. I have discussed this decision and the targets with my Academic Lead. I understand that there will be no change to the 3 and 5 year PDP target dates and that consideration will be given to work already completed. I can confirm the discipline-specific value of the research targets are agreed as specified below:



Signed: ………………………………………………. Date: ………………………

(Employee)

Signed: ………………………………………………. Date: ………………………

(Academic Lead)

Signed: ………………………………………………. Date: ………………………

(Dean Of College)

* Please indicate which option you wish then return the fully signed form to your HR Business Partner

Name: ………………………………………………….

College: ………………………………………………….

*I confirm that I have discussed my PDP targets with my academic lead and the discipline-specific value of the research targets are agreed as specified below:



Signed: ………………………………………………. Date: ………………………

(Employee)

Signed: ………………………………………………. Date: ………………………

(Academic Lead)

Signed: ………………………………………………. Date: ………………………

(Dean Of College)

* Please indicate which option you wish then return the fully signed form to your HR Business Partner


BACKGROUND TO PDP AND CURRENT STATISTICS 1 The Professional Development Programme was introduced in 2002/3 as part of the new HR

Strategy which the University agreed under HEFCE’s Rewarding and Developing Staff initiative.

2 Prior to this, staff appointed as Lecturers served a three year period of probation. (There was a shorter period of probation for Lecturers employed on fixed term contracts.) Probation reports were assessed by the Academic Staff Committee (later the HR Committee) which met once each term. This arrangement was not considered effective. It was not unusual for Lecturers to have their period of probation extended after the third year because the Committee considered that they had not met the required standard but there was insufficient evidence that performance had been managed effectively which would justify a dismissal at that stage.

3 The conditions of employment stated that “Recommendations to committees for confirmation of appointment will be required to address all the appropriate criteria listed. ACADEMIC STAFF (a) satisfactorily engaged in the teaching of prescribed courses and the tutorial and supervisory

work assigned to him/her; (b) satisfactorily engaged in research towards the advancement of his/her subject which will

normally be in the form of published work; (c) satisfactorily carried out such examination duties as have been required of him/her together

with a fair share of administrative duties; (d) shown promise by his/her work and enterprise of continuing to develop as a university teacher

and scholar.”

4 Additionally, there was an annual promotion process for progression from Lecturer to Senior Lecturer conducted by the Academic Staff Committee, with funding for approximately 30 promotions each year.

5 Under the 2002 HR Strategy (which also introduced higher starting salaries for new Lecturers), Junior Lecturers joining the University... will be recruited to point 9 on the academic pay scale and will be placed on a development programme (a new form of probationary contract) leading to confirmation of appointment after 5 years. The University will not use the Lecturer A to B “Progression Bar” for staff appointed on the new probationary contract. Instead, provided satisfactory progress is being made towards the agreement of objectives, an additional increment will be awarded after three years in post and a further additional increment on confirmation of appointment after five years. This will mean that five years after appointment, junior lecturers who have achieved their agreed objectives will be paid at point 16 on the academic pay scale (cf current expectation of reaching point 12 in the same period). This combination of measures is intended to reduce turnover amongst junior academic staff in the period leading up to the next RAE, to ensure that young academic staff joining the institution are regularly reviewed against objective criteria and are properly rewarded for their achievements, and to ensure that potential performance problems are identified as early as possible and are dealt with appropriately. In short, these measures represent a key element of the strategy to build a “high-performance-high-reward” culture.

6 When the new grading structure was introduced in 2006 as part of the implementation of the national Framework Agreement at Exeter, the PDP was changed so that staff automatically progressed to the new grade G and received the title of “Senior Lecturer” on completion of the PDP.

7 The number of Lecturers on the PDP increased rapidly after its initial introduction in 2002/3, dropped as the initial cohort progressed to Senior Lecturer and since increased again in line with the University’s pre-REF recruitment.

• November 2004: 82 • June 2005: 97 • November 2006 (ie when the new grading scheme was introduced): 153 • October 2007: 193

• July 2008: 167 • July 2009: 139 • July 2010: 150 • July 2011: 170 • July 2012: 167 • June 2013: 196

8 Table 1 shows the current profile of PDP Lectures by College/Discipline and by gender.

9 The PDP targets were reviewed in 2006 and there was a further review in 2010 but this was never completed.

10 VCEG have indicated that the Task and Finish Group should identify best practice across the sector to ensure that the revised arrangements are competitive against sector leaders. HR Directors of Russell Group universities have been requested to provide information about their probation arrangements for new Lecturers and the outcome of this survey will be reported to a future meeting of the Group.

Andrew Johnson Human Resources June 2013

Table 1: PDP Lecturers at June 2013 by College, Discipline and GenderFemale Male Total College Total

Camborne School of Mines 1 3 4Computing 0 2 2Engineering 0 7 7Mathematics 1 9 10Physics 3 8 11Radiography 1 0 1 35Classics and Ancient History 1 2 3Drama 3 3 6Modern Languages 3 0 3English 9 8 17History 7 6 13 42Biosciences 10 9 19Geography 6 5 11Psychology 2 1 3Sport and Health Sciences 3 5 8 41Graduate School of Education 9 3 12Institute of Arabic & Islamic Studies 4 2 6Politics 3 6 9Sociology, Philosophy & Anthropology 5 2 7Strategy & Security Institute 1 0 1The Law School 5 4 9 44Accounting 2 5 7Centre for Finance & Investment (XFI) 1 2 3Economics 3 4 7Management 2 3 5Organisation Studies 3 1 4 26

3 5 8 891 105 196 196

University of Exeter Medical School

College of Engineering, Mathematics & Physical Sciences

College of Humanities

College of Life & Environmental Sciences

College of Social Sciences & International Studies

University of Exeter Business School

To: Professor Steve Rippon Chair, Professional Development Programme Review Task and Finish Group Cc: Andrew Johnson, HR June 2013 Dear Professor Rippon, The University and College Union (UCU) at Exeter welcomes the opportunity to comment on the PDP system. We understand that the Professional Development Programme Task and Finish Group will examine the strengths and weaknesses of the PDP system for E&R staff, targets, and processes. We note that the Terms of Reference do not explicitly invite the Group to consider the overall model of probation and professional development for academics, so our recommendations are (with one exception) framed within this constraint of improvement rather than reform. We do, however, urge a more thorough reconsideration, and will be happy to elaborate if invited. Ensuring the PDP system is fit for purpose is of vital importance in maintaining high standards of teaching and research, providing a respectful and nurturing environment for staff, and enhancing the overall standing of the university. The review of the PDP system is long overdue. The 2012 Staff Survey T&S Group Report (pg. 11) identified significant concerns in commenting:

Some junior academic staff on the 5-year probation programme (PDP) (longer than at other universities) report finding the process very stressful, particularly when the completion of the probationary period is not managed well, or if it involves unclear and inconsistent target criteria. This can leave staff feeling isolated and uncertain about their future. Some expressed the view that the institution is fundamentally exploitative of younger staff members.

Based on the experiences of members, the UCU at Exeter has expressed concerns about the PDP system for a number of years. Those worries have extended beyond the final Year 5 outcomes for individual staff’s probation. Deficiencies with the past and the current versions of the PDP have negatively affected staff morale and well being, academic cultures, and the overall university workplace environment. In addition, there is extensive anecdotal evidence that uncertainty about the application of the PDP, combined with the 5-year probationary period, led a significant number of new staff to leave Exeter before the end of their probation, even though they were high-quality staff who would not, in practice, have had any problem in achieving the targets. We presume that the university has been monitoring this impact through its staff-leaver surveys, but we have not seen any information. Given the very high costs to the university of recruiting new staff to replace such leavers, this would be a very important impact of the PDP scheme which should be central to any review. Assessment With this in mind, the UCU at Exeter offers the following comments about the current PDP system:

1

1. Confusing Evaluation Procedures: A central problem with the current system relates to the procedures for evaluating whether staff have reached the specified stream targets. The relevant background for this point is the review of the former PDP provisions that took place in 2010/11. At the time, new criteria were forwarded by management that required staff to meet a large number of specific targets. This represented a shift away from the “balanced scorecard” approach to evaluating performance. In response to concerns raised by the UCU and others, management agreed to maintain a “balanced scorecard” approach. Frequent references to it are made to within PDP discussions today. And yet, the employment information for staff makes no reference to this scorecard approach1 – and certainly provides no details that would help staff understand how it might work. Instead the formal guidance to staff indicates standards for minimum requirements. As a result of this disjuncture between formal guidance and general practice, both senior staff within disciplines and junior who are in PDP face basic uncertainties in knowing what ‘meeting the targets’ means. 2. Obscured Discretion: In this situation, the UCU understands College Deans and DVCs exercise considerable discretion about when, how, and if a scorecard approach is used. In some cases, for instance, senior staff have been told they can only put others up for early promotion if “all the boxes have been ticked” whereas the “balanced scorecard” comes in at five years. This has not been the practice on other occasions. Then there is the additional complication of what happens if the PDP targets are not met within the allotted time period. Again the procedures and expectations for this are unclear and, on the basis of previous experiences of the UCU, subject to varied treatment guided by indiscernible rationales. 3. Unclear and Unrealistic Targets: Many of the current listed targets need revision. The target that received most sustained criticism from academic staff is one indicating that at the fifth year those on PDP should have secured research funding at a level consistent with their College’s FTE income target. This is neither realistic nor equitable. For many reasons and across varied disciplines, the pool of money available to junior scholars is shrinking and funding agencies have made it clear that, while all funded research will be of top quality, not all top quality research will receive funding -- there is simply not enough money for that. This target also places an exceptional burden on junior staff, one that exceeds what is expected from senior staff. Reflecting the discretionary manner in which criteria are evaluated, UCU experience suggests that it is only on some occasions that the target for income is treated as a requirement. When this is done it diminishes the regard given to other forms of contribution to the university – whether that relates to publications or teaching. Whether or not this is done, uncertainty about that standing of this target leaves many probationary staff fearful that their contracts will not be renewed after five years. We have recommended below that a research

1 At http://www.exeter.ac.uk/staff/employment/academicroles/youteachandresearch/lecturer/professionaldevelopmentprogrammepdp/

2

income target should be replaced with a target based on the quality and quantity of grant submissions made. Other targets need revision as well. It is unclear what ‘Take part in requisite design, review and QA processes’ means in practice. Apparently this includes undertaking PCAP/ASPIRE training, though this is not obvious from the wording. Likewise the target ‘Make a significant contribution to outreach activities at a level consistent with the College's Business Plan targets’ also makes unclear expectations.

Recommendations Based on this assessment of the deficiencies with the current approach, the UCU recommends the following: 1. Staff across Colleges should be able to complete their PDP on a “balanced scorecard” basis. This policy should be formally stated and basic parameters and expectations should be described. Those parameters should include utilising a scorecard approach throughout the 5 year period – in other words, staff should be able to complete the PDP early on this basis. 2. The UCU recognises that when operating with such a “balanced scorecard” approach PDP decisions cannot be reduced to a box ticking exercise. What is therefore imperative is to ensure robust and responsive process of discussion between PDP staff, senior discipline academic staff, and College level management. To adopt a phrase used by the outgoing Registrar, there should be ‘no surprises’ at the end of the PDP process. At minimum, PDP individuals should receive yearly updates (more frequently if needed) regarding their progression. Heads of Disciplines and College Deans should provide written feedback about what target areas need improvement and outline general expectations about what kind of activities would be needed for staff to progress; where staff performance is entirely in line with PDP completion, this should be stated explicitly, so that staff receive the required reassurance. What, if any, role (now mentoring-only) ALs should play in informing performance should be clear. 3. The university management should provide clarification about the processes for handling staff with deficiencies in their overall PDP performance. In particular, this should address the situation of those appointed to the E&R family whose PDP process reveals weaknesses in research but strong performance in education. How might such individuals be offered transfer to an E&S contract? 4. New members of staff should have a clear idea of what probation as a process entails when they sign their contract. They should also have a sense of the process and possible outcomes in the case they are judged not to have met the targets. To date, many staff have expended much energy and time seeking clarification about their individual situation, too often without success. It is the responsibility of management to ensure junior staff have a reasonable understanding of the expectations for performance, not the responsibility of junior staff to make sense of unclear targets and confused procedures. 5. The five year probation at Exeter is noticeably longer than that at other comparable universities. Three years should be sufficient time to assess the performance of junior staff as part of what we would suggest be retitled as a 'Progression Period'. Post that period, management can enact 'capability' procedures against non-performing members of staff. 6. Staff should be evaluated on the basis of their submitted grants, not on the grounds on whether they actually receive funding. In other words, the grounds should be academic

3

quality (as is the case with publications). Otherwise, in light of current likely future funding provisions, probation will be tantamount to a lottery. Now that all grant applications have to be rigorously peer-reviewed and approved by Directors of Research before submission, the University already has the necessary information to identify whether staff have made submissions of appropriate quality and quantity. We look forward to commenting on further work of the T&F Group. Please let us know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Prof Brian Rappert, on behalf of UCU Exeter

4

professional development programme task and finish …

Documents