64 PTR Merit Assessment and Salary Increase Instructions for 2004 2005

PDAD&C #64, 2004-05

THIS MEMORANDUM SUPERCEDES PDAD&C #32, March 8, 2004

M E M O R A N D U M

To:  Principals, Deans, Academic Directors and Chairs
From: Vivek Goel, Vice President & Provost
Date:  March 21, 2005
Re: PTR/Merit Assessment and Salary Increase Instructions for 2004-2005
____________________________________________________________

To assist you with the performance evaluation of your faculty members and librarians, this memorandum contains instructions for annual reporting by faculty and librarians, for salary increases and for the administration of the PTR/Merit Scheme. The PTR award is based on the performance assessment for 2004-2005.  

Negotiations between the University and UTFA are currently underway. The across-the-board increase for faculty and librarians for July 1, 2005 will be agreed upon during these negotiations.

PLEASE REVIEW THIS DOCUMENT CAREFULLY AS IT CONSOLIDATES AND UPDATES PREVIOUS YEARS’ MEMORANDA.

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE INSTRUCTIONS IN PDF FORMATAttachment (83.7 KB) or view online below.

CONTENTS:

Section 1:

Deadlines and Key Activities

Section 2:

Overview of PTR/Merit Scheme and Salary Increase Instructions

Section 3:

Technical Aspects of the Distribution of PTR Awards

Appendix A:

Explanation of the PTR Plan

Appendix B:

Salary Structures

Appendix C:

Interpretation of Teaching Evaluations

Appendix D:

Sample Senior Salary Letter

Appendix E:

Categories of Assessment for the Senior Salary Group

Appendix F:

Salary Increase Instructions for Research Associates (Limited Term) and Senior Research Associates


1.   Deadlines and Key Activities:

By March 31:

  • Unit head (Chief Librarian, Dean, Chair or Director) requests Annual Activity Report and Paid Activity Report from all faculty members and librarians
  • Information on 5% Merit Pool sent by Deans of multi-department divisions to Chairs and by the Provost to Deans of single department divisions

By April 30:

  • Faculty and librarians submit their Annual Activity Report and Paid Activity Report to the unit head

May:         

  • Chairs and Directors in multi-department Divisions submit assessments for Senior Salary members in their units to Deans (deadline will be set by each Dean)

May 27: 

  • Senior salary assessments submitted by Deans to the Provost  
  • Deans of single-department faculties submit recommendations for 5% merit pool allocations to the Provost. The Provost will notify Deans of merit allocations before the end of June
  • Deans submit their Annual Activity Report and Paid Activity Report to the Provost

June:

  • Chairs, Directors and Deans complete assessments for each faculty member and librarian who is not in the Senior Salary group
  • Recommendations for 5% merit pool allocations are submitted by Chairs and Directors to Deans in multi-departmental faculties (deadline to be set by each Dean). The Dean will notify the Chair of merit allocations before the end of June

June 24: 

  • Provost notifies Deans of awards to members of Senior Salary group
  • Dean will notify Chairs and Directors of Senior Salary group awards

July 1: 

  • Written notification of performance assessment and PTR must be received by faculty and librarians

2.   Overview of PTR/Merit Scheme and Salary Increase Instructions

The purpose of this document is to clarify and provide guidance concerning the administration of the PTR scheme to ensure that the career progress of faculty members and librarians is recognized and enhanced and to ensure that meritorious performance is appropriately recognized.

As the University strives to improve its standing amongst the best research and teaching universities in the world, one of the most effective tools it has is the compensation scheme for faculty members and librarians.  The progress-through-the-ranks (PTR) scheme is a critical means of recognizing each individual’s contribution to teaching, research and service.  The PTR scheme is founded on the following principles:

  1. PTR is the only source of promotional increases for faculty members and librarians, but it is based on the assumption that each individual's rate of promotion is a function of that individual's MERIT.
  2. 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 will merit high PTR awards, and some careers will not progress and hence will merit no PTR awards.

It is recognized that the vast majority of individuals are fulfilling their responsibilities and, as a consequence, their careers should advance. Individuals whose careers are progressing will have consistently contributed to the advancement of the field, will have contributed by teaching at a high level and will have served the University and the broader community.  That is, AVERAGE OR MEDIAN PTR will reflect the very high standard expected of all of our faculty members. 

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 knowledge translation 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.

Teaching

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.  The teaching responsibilities of Lecturers/Senior Lecturers (and/or Tutors/Senior Tutors) are normally confined to undergraduates.  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. Appendix C has been prepared by the Office of Teaching Advancement and provides guidance on the assessment and evaluation of teaching.  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. 

Service

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.

The Evaluation Process

It is very important to ensure that the evaluation process for PTR awards is 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 and discussed with academic staff and reiterated at the time of evaluation.

Material Provided by Faculty and Librarians

1.       The Annual Activity Report

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 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.  Development of a teaching dossier is to be encouraged for all faculty.  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 included appropriate consultation. 

2.       Paid Activities Report (Download formAttachment (25.5 KB))

The University’s Policy on Conflict of Interest for Academic Staff (June 1994) requires that, as part of the Annual Activity Report, every faculty member submit a Paid Activities Report.  This form can be found at http://www.provost.utoronto.ca/English/page-6-1480-1.html 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

1.    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.

2.    Statement from Unit Head

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.

3.    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 are approximately equal, but in a limited number of cases, an argument might be made that an atypical weighting of activities that reflects 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. Teaching Stream staff may be evaluated on pedagogical scholarship related to their teaching activities, or other scholarship that is required in their own position description. 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 an individual be fully relieved of 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.

4.    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 (and/or Tutor/Senior Tutor)[1] 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 Chair/Director must still document the criteria for evaluation.

Administrative Follow-up

1.    Communications

Letters must be sent to each individual explaining the judgment underlying the award.  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 award, the annual salary increase letter should include the appropriate histogram.

2.    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 attention.  Such discussions might also involve consideration of a change in duties, early retirement, or particular steps to remedy the difficulties. All such cases should be brought to the attention of the division head and Provost.

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 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 the Provost’s office for advice on discipline and performance management if required. 

3.    Appeal Process

Faculty members can appeal PTR decisions under Article VII of the Memorandum of Agreement.


3.   Technical Aspects of the Distribution of PTR Awards

The Human Resources Department will be issuing instructions regarding entry of the awards into HRIS.  Please make every effort to meet deadlines to ensure that awards to members of your division/department will be implemented in the July pay.

These instructions describe the technical process of carrying out the distribution of PTR awards for July 1, 2005 to all faculty members and librarians, except for those who are in the senior salary category. Awards for those in the senior salary category are calculated centrally and will be communicated to you by the Provost’s office.

Calculating PTR Awards Based on Assessments of Performance

It is important to note that it is an individual’s June 30, 2005 annual base salary (excluding stipends) that determines how the July 1, 2005 PTR award will be made. In other words, the June 30, 2005 salary determines into which PTR pool an individual will fall.           

The PTR scheme [2] provides each academic unit with a pool of base budget funds that are to be expended fully on merit-driven base salary increases for faculty members and librarians.  The formula which drives the calculation of the size of the PTR fund in each unit assumes that $2,655 is available for distribution on the basis of merit per professorial staff member whose salary is below the breakpoint ($119,950) and $1,515 per professorial staff member whose salary is above the breakpoint.  For lecturers/senior lecturers (and tutors/senior tutors) the figures are $2,030 below their breakpoint ($93,950) and $1,165 above and for librarians, the figures are $2,080 below the librarian breakpoint ($90,900)  and $1,040 above.  These amounts exclude 5% set aside for allocation through the “5% merit pool” (The “5% merit pool” is described later in these instructions).  The calculation of the Divisional PTR funds excludes those individuals whose salary is at or above the respective Senior Salary categories.  PTR and ATB funding for these individuals is pooled centrally (see section below on Senior Salaries).  Note, however, that PTR increases are not an automatic entitlement for individual faculty members or librarians. 

Please note:

  • The funds below or above the breakpoint for each group form two distinct pools and should be spent only on the staff in that pool. 
  • 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.  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.
  • The division head should approve remuneration above the ceiling, where ceilings apply.[3]

Departmental Merit Pool Funding

PROFESSORIAL SENIOR SALARY CATEGORY

 

$139,550

 

 

 

PROFESSORIAL BREAKPOINT
Amount in fund per FTE above Breakpoint
Amount in fund per FTE below Breakpoint    


$1,515*
$2,655*

$119,950

 

 

 

 

LECTURER/SENIOR LECTURER and/or
TUTOR/SENIOR TUTOR SENIOR SALARY CATEGORY

 


$106,450

 

 

 

LECTURER/SENIOR LECTURER and/or
TUTOR/SENIOR TUTOR BREAKPOINT
Amount in fund per FTE above Breakpoint
Amount in fund per FTE below Breakpoint 



$1,165*
$2,030*

$93,950

 

 

 

LIBRARIAN SENIOR SALARY CATEGORY

 

$108,750

 

 

 

LIBRARIAN BREAKPOINT
Amount in fund per FTE above Breakpoint
Amount in fund per FTE below Breakpoint 


$1,040*
$2,080*

$90,900

*This amount excludes 5% set aside for allocation through the “5% merit pool.”

Senior Salaries: Deadline Friday May 27th 2005

Professorial staff whose June 30, 2005 salary is equal to or greater than $139,550, lecturers/ senior lecturers (and/or tutors/senior tutors) whose June 30, 2005 salary is equal to or greater than $106,450 and librarians whose June 30, 2005 salary is equal to or greater than $108,750 are in the senior salary group. The size of the pool available for allocation to this group is computed by multiplying the total salary base for each of these groups by the July 1, 2005 across-the-board (ATB) percentage and adding above-the-breakpoint PTR amount for each FTE in the group.  Awards to individuals in the senior salary group are then made solely on the basis of merit with the across-the-board amount incorporated into the pool.  No increase based solely on ATB is provided to this group.  A sample of the letter sent by the Provost to individuals who are entering the Senior Salary Group letting them know how their evaluation will be conducted is attached as Appendix D.

In multi-departmental units, evaluations of professorial staff in the senior salary group are carried out by Chairs/Directors and forwarded to their Dean or Principal.  Deans/Principals then consider these evaluations on a faculty-wide basis and make recommendations to the Provost.  In non-departmental faculties, the relevant Dean performs the evaluation and makes recommendations to the Provost.  Principals and Deans are strongly encouraged to use advisory committees in their senior salary evaluation process (see above section on The Use of Committees).

Unit heads provide a rating of each individual supported by a brief (one paragraph) written assessment describing the individual's accomplishments in each of the areas of teaching, research, scholarship/creative professional achievement, and service during the current year, as appropriate. The ratings for individuals in this group are based on an assessment of the individual's performance during the past year and are expressed in the following categories:           

Superior

A truly outstanding level of accomplishment in the past year, which is exceptional even within the Senior Salary Group.

Surpasses Expectations

An extremely strong academic performer in the past year who has been a role model for colleagues in all areas.

Achieves Expectations

The category Achieves Expectations may be subdivided into:

  • Achieves Expectations (plus)
  • Achieves Expectations
  • Achieves Expectations (minus)

Performed very well in all areas in the past year as is to be expected of members of the Senior Salary Group; or performed extremely strongly in some areas, but not as well in others.

 

Below Expectations

Active, but performance in the past year was in some respect below the very good level which is to be expected of a member of the senior salary group, e.g. performance is not consistent or is weaker than is appropriate in some areas.

Unsatisfactory

Performance is below the very good level to be expected of a member of the senior salary group and may be of serious concern; a review of status needs to be undertaken.

Please note that the category ‘Achieves Expectations’ reflects the very good level of performance that is to be expected of members of the senior salary group.  It is expected that this rating category will be the most frequently used when Deans make their recommendations to the Provost.

The monetary value of senior salary awards are determined by the Provost based upon assessments provided by the Dean.  The senior salary compensation program is approved by the Senior Salary Committee, which consists of the Chair of Governing Council, the Vice-Chair of Governing Council, the Chair of the Business Board, a second member of the Business Board, an alumni Governor and the President. 

Principals and Deans must submit their senior salary assessments for professorial staff and for lecturers/ senior lecturers (and/or tutors/senior tutors) to the Provost no later than Friday, May 27th 2005. Assessments of librarians should be submitted to the Chief Librarian who will review the assessments on behalf of the Provost. Chairs/Directors will have an earlier deadline set by their Division head for submission of senior salary ratings, if applicable.

The Provost will notify the Principals and Deans of the awards to members of the senior salary groups in their divisions by June 24th, 2005.  Senior salaries are not included on departmental histograms.  The Provost’s office will provide a histogram for the senior salary groups.

Principals and Deans are responsible for ensuring that individuals whose main appointment is in their division are notified of their assessment and full PTR award and that they are given a copy of the senior salary histogram. In multi-departmental divisions, the Principal or Dean’s office will notify departments of the awards so that the awards can be entered into HRIS by the department. 

The Provost determines the awards for Principals and Deans.  The Provost will write to the Principals and Deans to notify them of their award and will provide them with the senior salary histogram.  The Principal or Dean’s office is responsible for entering the award into HRIS.

Professorial Staff, Lecturers/Senior Lecturers and Librarians    

The following instructions apply to professorial staff, lecturers/senior lecturers (and tutors/senior tutors) and librarians whose June 30, 2005 salaries place them below the senior salary category:           

a)    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) whose June 30, 2005 salary is less than $139,550 shall be considered for a PTR award.  The amount of the increase should reflect the performance assessments of the individuals and should take into account the total funding available in each pool for professorial staff.  The breakpoint for 2005-2006 is $119,150.

b)   Lecturers/Senior Lecturers and/or Tutors/Senior Tutors

Those persons in the teaching stream with the rank of Lecturer/Senior Lecturer or Tutor/Senior Tutor whose June 30, 2005 salary is less than $106,450 shall be considered for a PTR award based on the performance assessments of individuals and should take into account the total funding available in each pool for Lecturers/Senior Lecturers and/or Tutors/Senior Tutors.  The breakpoint for 2005-2006 is $93,950.

c)    Librarians

Librarians whose June 30, 2005 salary is less than $108,750 shall be considered for a PTR increase based on the performance assessments of individuals and should take into account the total funding available in each pool for librarians.  The breakpoint for 2005-2006 is $90,900.

d)    Other Academic Staff (Instructors, etc)

This group does not have a PTR scheme; however, funding is calculated at 3% of the salary base for this group for the award of merit.  Individual increases will vary based on differentials in performance.

Divisional, Provost’s and Librarians 5% Merit Pool

Funds allocated under the 5% merit pool may be awarded to any faculty member or librarian except those in the senior salary category. 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.

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.

Special Salaries               

This category includes those Principals and Deans who are not in the senior salary category.  Their award is determined by the Provost and will be communicated by the Provost’s office to the division to be entered into HRIS.  The Provost writes to the Principals and Deans to notify them of their award and provides a histogram.

PTR/Merit - Special Notes               

a)    Staff on Research and Study Leave

Staff members in all the above groups who are on research and study leave during 2004-2005 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 head’s should use their discretion in such situations in determining what recognition is warranted in the PTR determination. 

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.

b)   Staff on Unpaid Leave

Staff on unpaid leave do not normally receive a PTR increase.

c)    Rank Ceilings

Rank ceilings (see appendix B) remain in effect for Assistant Professor, Assistant Professor (Conditional), and Librarian II categories.  If a division or department head decides to recommend the award of a PTR increase to an individual whose June 30, 2005, salary exceeds the rank ceiling or which would result in that individual’s salary exceeding the rank ceiling, approval of the divisional head, or, in the case of librarians, the Office of the Chief Librarian is required.  Awards exceeding the rank ceiling should be reported to the Provost.

d)   Part-Time Staff

Increases for part-time staff should be determined on the basis of their annualized salaries and appropriately pro-rated.

e)   Staff who retired or ceased employment during 2004-2005

Do not calculate awards for individuals who are not currently employed by the University.  Individuals who retired or early retired on or before June 30, 2005 do not receive a July 1, 2005 PTR award.

f)         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.

Approvals and Notification of the July 1, 2005 PTR Award Based Upon Assessment of Performance in 2004-2005

Prior to communication to the staff member, all increases must be approved by the Principal or Dean.  There will be no approval process in the Provost’s office as this has now been delegated to the decanal level.  However, Principals and Deans are responsible for reporting exceptions to policy to the Provost. The Provost reviews each divisional histogram with the division head to ensure that the PTR scheme is working and to understand any individual variances.  The division head in each of the multi-departmental faculties should undertake a similar review of departmental histograms with Chairs/Directors.

Every faculty member, librarian and lecturer/senior lecturer (and/or tutor/senior tutor) should receive written notification of his/her 2004-2005 performance assessment and resulting PTR award and should be give a histogram from his/her Chair/Director or Dean.   The letter should confirm the individual’s July 1, 2005 salary.  Letters should be sent by July 1st.

The Provost will provide Principals and Deans with confirmation of the PTR assessment and the PTR award and histogram of each member of the senior salary category. This information will be sent to Divisions by June 24th 2005.  Principals and Deans are responsible for sending letters to those whose main appointment is in their division by July 1st.

By July 1st The Provost will write to the Principals and Deans to inform them of the assessment of their performance and of their PTR award and will provide them with a histogram.

Histograms (Download Forms as an Excel FileAttachment (43 KB))

a)    General

As in the past, division and department heads will be responsible for the preparation of histograms showing the distribution of total PTR and for forwarding the histograms to the Provost's office as soon as they have been prepared (please fax to the Office of the Vice-Provost, Academic – (416) 946-0813). 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.

b)   Instructions for Completion of Histograms

  1. The histogram should reflect the total PTR including the 5% special merit pool awards. You should distinguish the two awards by the use of shading on the histogram.
  2. Histograms are to be completed for each division.  In a multi-departmental faculty, each department must also complete histograms.
  3. The Library Personnel Office will prepare histograms for the Library.
  4. Blank histograms are attached to these instructions. There are separate histograms for recording increases above and below the breakpoint for Professorial staff, Lecturers/Senior Lecturers (and/or Tutors/Senior Tutors) and Librarians.  There is also a histogram for Other Academics (Instructors, etc).  Please report all increases for Professorial staff, Lecturers/Senior Lecturers (and/or Tutors/Senior Tutors) 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  • Senior Salaries - these are not included on departmental histograms.  A senior salary histogram is provided to the division by the Provost.
  • Special Salaries- these are not included on departmental histograms. A special salary histogram is provided by the Provost.

Inquiries

Please contact one of the following should you have any inquiries about these instructions:     

Provost’s Office 

Vivek Goel   provost@utoronto.ca
Edith Hillan vp.academic@utoronto.ca
Sheree Drummond sheree.drummond@utoronto.ca


 Planning and Budget Office

Judy McKenna (For budget/PTR pools) judy.mckenna@utoronto.ca


Appendix A: Explanation of the PTR Plan

The Progress Through The Ranks (PTR) Plan is a model with three reference points: a base, a breakpoint and an endpoint.  These points determine the rate of opportunity for career progress provided by the Plan as illustrated below.

Image

The Plan itself operates as a model outlining general career opportunity and determines the size of the pool of funds available for the recognition of merit from year to year.  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.  Hence, the model determines the assessment of funding annual merit increases.  The position of any individual staff member in relation to the model will primarily be a function of individual merit over the period of a career to date.

The PTR Plan is designed to allow for broad differentiation amongst individuals at different salary levels.  The set salary level known as the "breakpoint" divides the pool of funds available for distribution to those either above or below the breakpoint.

Appendix B: Salary Structures as of Jan 1, 2005

You should be aware of basic salary structures within which the PTR schemes for faculty and librarians operate, because no faculty member or librarian may be paid less than the floor for his or her rank and remuneration above the ceiling, where ceilings apply, requires approval from the division head.

FACULTY SALARY STRUCTURE

 

As of Jan 1, 2005

ACADEMIC RANK

MIN

MAX

PROFESSOR

$73,700

 

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR

$55,000

 

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR

$44,900

$76,300

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (CONDITIONAL)

$37,700

$62,200

LECTURER/SENIOR LECTURER

$52,100

 

Effective July 1, 1999, the Lecturer/Senior Lecturer category replaced Tutor/Senior Tutor under the revised Policy and Procedures on Academic Appointments for new appointments in the teaching stream.

LIBRARIAN SALARY STRUCTURE

 

As of Jan 1, 2005

LIBRARIAN RANK

MIN

MAX

LIBRARIAN I

$45,800

 

LIBRARIAN II

$47,900

$51,500

LIBRARIAN III

$48,900

 

LIBRARIAN IV

$55,700

 

 

Appendix C: Interpretation of Teaching Evaluations

All courses and instructors at the University of Toronto should be annually evaluated by students registered in those courses. The evaluations should consist of discreet sections in which the students are provided an opportunity to assess the performance of the instructor and the content of the course on a numerical scale and to add anecdotal 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.  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 consideration 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 course evaluations.  Decisions should be based on a careful analysis of all the material filed annually in the faculty member’s teaching portfolio. 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.  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.


Appendix D: Sample Senior Salary Letter (Download Sample LetterAttachment (27.5 KB))

PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL

Dear

Your current annual salary places you on the University’s senior salary list.  This list includes those whose annual base salaries (excluding stipends) are at or above $139,550 as of June 30, 2005.  My purpose in writing to you at this time is to explain the procedure that will be used in determining your salary increase for July 1, 2005 since this differs from the one that applies to faculty members whose salaries are below this level.

The pool of funds available for allocation to those on the senior salary list is arrived at, as for other pools, by calculating for each person on the list the equivalent of the across-the-board increase resulting from salary and benefits negotiations and adding to it the nominal PTR for faculty members whose salaries are above the break-point.  However, this total pool of funds for the senior salary list is allocated entirely on the basis of merit.  That is, individuals on the senior salary list do not automatically receive an increase.

The assessment of merit is arrived at through reports that I solicit from the deans and principals about the performance of faculty members within their divisions who are on the senior salary list.  In multi-departmental divisions, the dean or principal normally begins the process of assessment by requesting a report from the appropriate chair.  In each case, the dean or principal provides me with a short description of what has been accomplished by the individual in the past year in the areas of teaching, research/scholarship/creative professional achievement, and service, together with an overall rating of the individual on a scale ranging from “superior” to “unsatisfactory.”  It is important to note that the scale refers to the high expectations that the University has of all individuals in the senior salary group.  That is, the comparison group is not the faculty at large, but others whose achievements are such that their salaries are at this level.  The performance of the average members of this group will, in practice, be at a higher level than is typical of senior faculty who are not on the senior salary list.

My role is to review the ratings provided by the deans and principals to ensure that comparable standards have been used and then to recommend to the Senior Salary Committee the allocation of the pool of funds.  The members of the Senior Salary Committee are the Chair and the Vice-Chair of Governing Council, the Chair of the Business Board, a second member of the Business Board, an alumni Governor and the President.  In recent years it has been the practice to award the same dollar increase to all individuals who are assigned the same rating, regardless of their base salary.  This means that the increase for individuals assigned a particular rating will not be the same percentage of salary.  It has also been the practice to differentiate strongly in the dollar level of awards across the different scale levels.

Once the increases for July 1, 2005 have been confirmed, I will write to your Dean or Principal to advise him or her of the award which has been made in your case.  The Dean or Principal will ensure that you are informed of the award and provided with a performance assessment and with a histogram.

If you have any questions about the process, I would be pleased to assist.

With best wishes,

 

Vivek Goel
Vice-President and Provost



Appendix E: Categories of Assessment for the Senior Salary Group

The recommendations for individuals in this group are based on the individual's performance during the past year and fall within the following seven categories: superior; surpasses expectations; achieves expectations (plus); achieves expectations; achieves expectations (minus); below expectations; unsatisfactory.          

Superior - a truly outstanding level of accomplishment in the past year that is exceptional even within the Senior Salary Group.

Surpasses Expectations - an extremely strong academic performer in the past year who has provided a role model for colleagues in all areas.

Achieves Expectations - performed very well in all areas in the past year as is to be expected of members of the Senior Salary Group; or performed extremely strongly in some areas, but not as well in others. The category Achieves Expectations may be subdivided into Achieves Expectations (plus), Achieves Expectations and Achieves Expectations (minus).

Below Expectations - active, but performance in the past year was in some respect below the very good level which is to be expected of a member of the Senior Salary Group, e.g. performance is not consistent or is weaker than is appropriate in some areas.

Unsatisfactory - performance is below the very good level to be expected of a member of the Senior Salary Group and may be of serious concern; a review of status needs to be undertaken.

Please note that the category “Achieves Expectations” reflects the very good level of performance that is to be expected of members of the Senior Salary group.  It therefore follows that this rating category will be the most frequently used.

 March, 2005


Appendix F : Salary Increase Instructions for July 1, 2005 for Research Associates (Limited Term) and Senior Research Associates

The policy on Research Associates (limited term) and Senior Research Associates approved by Governing Council will govern salary increases for these two groups.  According to that policy, across-the-board changes reflect those negotiated with the University of Toronto Faculty Association.

There are two components to the increase as of 1 July 2005.

1.       An across-the-board increase has not yet been set.

2.       A merit component as follows:

For Research Associates (limited term)

A merit increase of 0 – 3%, depending upon performance

For Senior Research Associates

                        a) below the breakpoint of $58,900

A merit increase of 0 - 4%, depending upon performance

                        b) above the breakpoint of $58,900

A merit increase of 0 - 2.5%, depending upon performance

Research Associates should be provided with a written statement of their salary increase and a full performance appraisal.  All merit increases require the approval of the dean or division head.

Salary Ranges for Research Associates [as of January 1, 2005]

 

Minimum

Maximum

Research Associate (Limited Term)

$31,600

$64,600

Senior Research Associate

$41,100

 

***************************

Salaries in excess of the range maximum must be approved by the appropriate division head.  No individual may be paid below the published range minimum.



[1] Effective July 1, 1999, the Lecturer/Senior Lecturer category replaced Tutor/Senior Tutor under the revised Policy and Procedures on Academic Appointments for new appointments in the teaching stream.  Those who were currently in the Tutor/Senior Tutor category could choose the new Lecturer/Senior Lecturer stream or remain as Tutors/Senior Tutors.  The compensation scheme for both groups is the same

[2] A description of the PTR scheme is attached as Appendix A.

[3] See Appendix B for the basic salary structures.