Faculty Evaluation

1. Faculty Evaluation Faculty Workshop on Promotion & Tenure March 29, 2013 A Peer Reviewer’s Perspective

2. About Me • Tenured Professor – I’ve been through the process • Longevity – tenure-track since 1984, adjunct from 1980 to 1984 • Served on the University-wide Faculty Evaluation Committee since 1997 • Current Chair • Served on and/or chaired all sub-committees • Member of the Provost’s Task Force on Evaluation of Faculty Work for Promotion, Tenure, Post-tenure Review and Hiring

3. The Evaluation Process • Outlined in the Faculty Handbook • Up to seven levels of review – takes 9 months • Timeline is available on the Faculty Services website listed by Union

4. Levels of Review • Extended Campus Director/President • Department Head/Chair • School or College Peer Review Committee • Dean or Director • University-wide Faculty Evaluation Committee • Provost • Chancellor *Not all files go through all levels of review.

5. General Timeline • Files are due in the dean’s office in September • Department Heads/Chairs review files in September or October • School or College Peer Review Committees review files in October

6. About School/College Peer Review Committees • The make-up of the School/College Peer Review Committees varies from unit to unit and between unions. • Generally the committees are made up of 5 tenured professors (or tenured associate professors). • The background of the committee members also varies. Large departments may have committees made up of members entirely from that discipline.

7. General Timeline (continued) • Deans/Directors review files in November • The files go to the University-wide Faculty Evaluation Committee (UFEC) in mid-December or early January.

8. About the University-wide Faculty Evaluation Committee • Fifteen members serving 3-year terms • Five each from the three workload categories – Tripartite Academic, Bipartite Academic, and Bipartite Vocational • Three sub-committees each representing a workload category. • Each sub-committee is comprised of three members of that workload category and one each from the other two categories.

9. Committee Responsibilities • Review the recommendations of the previous levels of review. • To compare the information in the candidate’s file with the appropriate criteria. • Review proposed changes to unit promotion and tenure guidelines. • Make recommendations to the Provost.

10. UFEC Workload • UFEC reviews files from all schools and colleges, plus the extended campuses, for 4-year comprehensive review/ retention, promotion, tenure, 6-year post-tenure review, distinguished professor, and emeritus (79 files this year). • Each sub-committee meets every Friday from the beginning of Spring Semester in January until the 1st of March.

11. UFEC Workload • Each sub-committee meets until all the files in that workload category are reviewed. • The Tripartite Academic sub-committee usually has the largest workload. • Each week the sub-committees review between 5 and 10 files. • Each sub-committee member must read all the files for that week. • In addition, each member will be assigned one or two files for which they will be responsible for writing the Findings and Recommendations.

12. UFEC Workload • It’s a lot of work in a short amount of time. • The files are kept in a secure location at the Administration Building and are only available for review Monday – Friday from 8 to 5. • Hopefully, you have a better understanding of the process, and how it works. • The upshot? Make your file easy to review!

13. The Review • Regent’s policy on the evaluation of faculty describes the purpose of review as follows. • To appraise the extent to which the faculty member has met their professional obligation. • To appraise the extent to which the faculty member’s professional growth and development has proceeded. • To appraise the prospects for the faculty member’s continued professional growth and development. • To identify changes, if any, in emphasis required for such growth.

14. The Review • First I review the unit guidelines. • Then I read the previous levels of review. • Next I read the Vita and the Self Review. • Then I compare the Workloads with the Annual Activity Reports and the Student Evaluations. • Then I compare the different workload components with unit criteria.

15. Your File • You are responsible for the creation of your file. • It is important so allow enough time to do a good job. • Some estimates are up to 100 hours. • Make it easy to review!

16. 1 – Find the Rules. • Obtain and carefullyread 4 documents • Chapter 4 of the Board of Regent’s Policy • Chapter III of the Faculty Handbook (UAA Policy) • The guidelines for your school or college • The Collective Bargaining Agreement for your union • Where can you find them? • The Faculty Services website

17. 2 – Determine the review period. • Review period for promotion is from the last promotion or initial hire. • Review period for tenure is from initial hire. • If given credit for work at another institution, include appointment letter and information for that work.

18. 2 – Determine the review period (continued). • If the review period includes a sabbatical, include the application and report. • If UNAC, advise dean, or director of your intention at the end of your appointment period (May).

19. 3 – Gather the required information. • Workload Agreement(s) • Make sure they have all signatures • Annual Activity Report(s) • Make sure they have all signatures • Must match Workload Agreement • Current Vita • Past Review Summaries • The “colored” sheets • Student Evaluations • Required! • Include documentation for missing ones

20. 3 – Gather the required information (continued). • Course syllabi for the review year(s) • One for each different course • If you taught multiple sections of the same course, only include the latest syllabus. • Verification of degrees, certificates, licenses • Original transcripts or a letter from Marian Bruce stating that the transcripts are on file. • Do not copy diplomas.

21. 3 – Gather the required information (continued). • Additional documentation of teaching, service, and research/creative activity. • Letters of recommendation • Addressing all areas of workload • Internal • External • External reviewers

22. 4 – Organize the information. • This is very important! • Follow the list in the Faculty Handbook and add other sections as necessary. • Include summaries for each element of your workload. • Establish a chronology - be consistent. • Use index tabs with word labels (not numbers or letters) • Most reviewers do not like sheet protectors

23. 5 – Write the Self Review. • This should address each element of your workload. • Explain what you do and how you do it. • Include goals and objectives. • Address any problem areas. • Why is it a problem? • What are you planning to correct the problem?

24. 6 – Include a Letter of Transmittal. • State clearly the intent of the file – retention, promotion, and/or tenure. • Reference the rules with which you wish to be evaluated. • Has there been a recent change in your school or college’s criteria? • Do you want to be evaluated on the new rules or the old ones?

25. Important Notes Time in Rank • The current UAA Policy (Chapter III of the Faculty Handbook) has always allowed for exceptions to minimum time in rank, terminal degree, and experience qualifications. • In 2007, the Provost entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with UNAC that reinforced that fact. • The caveat is that “the basis for exception shall be outstanding academic performance and/or outstanding professional experience.”

26. Additional Thoughts • Don’t be afraid to brag. • Reviewers may not be from your discipline – be clear and go easy on the acronyms. • Reviewers are evaluating your file not you – make sure it’s all in there. • “Would you accept this file from one of your students?” What grade would it get?

27. The Future • As Emily Litella would say, “What’s all this about premonition and tension?” • The Provost’s Task Force on Evaluation of Faculty Work for Promotion, Tenure, Post-tenure Review and Hiring met from April, 2008 to March 2010. • Our charge was to review the current status of the faculty evaluation process and develop recommendations for revision.

28. The Future • We finished our work and submitted the proposal to Provost Driscoll. • Our proposal is a complete re-write of the UAA’s Promotion and Tenure Guidelines (Chapter III of the Faculty Handbook). • Hopefully, you have been following the progress and participated in the process. • It will mean a change.

29. The Future • Our recommendation for implementation would not change the current evaluation process for current faculty members until after their next major review. • During AY 2012-2013 units (schools and colleges) reviewed and revised their Evaluation Guidelines. • There will also be multiple training opportunities for both faculty and reviewers.

30. The Future • Newly appointed faculty will be reviewed under the new guidelines beginning in AY 2013-2014.