Changes in the Faculty Review Process

for United Academics Faculty

Presenter: Patricia Linton, College of Arts & Sciences

Overview of Changes

Importance of the Annual Activity Report

Sequence of reviewers

Contents of files submitted for tenure and/or promotion reviews

Changes in post-tenure review

Focus of Evaluation

Extent of professional growth and development;

Prospects for continued professional growth & development;

Changes or improvements required for tenure, promotion, and continued professional growth;

Processes available to assist in improving performance.

Annual Activity Report

Previous function at UAA.

Annual submission of current CV, Annual Activity Report, including brief narrative self-evaluation (due September 10).

Requires a response by Dean or designee with respect to the “sufficiency” of the faculty member’s performance. (new)

Annual Activity Report Format of the Annual Activity Report may

vary across MAUs.

Not a “file” like those required for more extensive reviews.

Annual responses of the Dean become part of the faculty member’s file at the next comprehensive review (4th year, tenure and/or promotion, post-tenure review).

Annual Activity Report

Evaluation of performance is based upon the allocation of effort specified in the Workload Agreement.

Annual evaluation places greater emphasis on the fit between the Workload Agreement and the Annual Activity Report.

Changes in the workload must be approved and formally documented.

Annual Workload Agreement

Approved faculty Workload Agreement is the basis for evaluation. Approved workload = signed by the Dean.

CBA allows flexibility in allocation of units across areas of the workload. Revise if workload changes.

Teaching assignment: specific courses listed accurately

Research: topic, expected product, level of development

Service: revise as needed; stay within assigned units

Sequence of Reviews Department chairs do not serve as reviewers in their capacity as

chairs- For major reviews, the college-level peer review committee is

the initial reviewer.

Department chairs may serve as members of Peer Review Committees.

Program directors who are represented faculty may serve on peer review committees. Directors who have administrative appointments may review as the Deans’s designee, at the discretion of the Dean.

Sequence of Reviews

Most evaluations end with the review of the Dean or designee.- All annual evaluations in response to Annual Activity

Report end at the Dean’s level (pre-tenure and post-tenure)

- Post-tenure comprehensive reviews end at the Dean’s level unless the faculty member is seeking promotion or receives an unsatisfactory evaluation.

Contents of File for Major Reviews Major reviews are the following:

- 4th Year Comprehensive Review (occurs in year 4, covers 3 prior years)

- Review for Tenure (review of all prior years)- Review for Promotion (all prior years or all since initiation of last

review for promotion)- 6th Year Comprehensive Post-Tenure Review (all years since

initiation of tenure and/or promotion review or last comprehensive post-tenure review)

- Special review requested by either the faculty member or the Dean.

Most file contents are the same for all major reviews, except for evaluation by external reviewers and discretionary materials.

Contents of File for Major Reviews specified in the CBA

1. Current CV

2. Annual Workload Agreements for the period under review

3. A Cumulative Activity Report for the period under review (one comprehensive activity report documenting productivity in each area of the workload during the full period under review)

Contents of File for Major Reviews (CBA)

4. Feedback from the Dean in response to Annual Activity Reports throughout the period under review (copy of each annual response)

5. Summarized teaching evaluations

6. Self-evaluation summarizing scholarly contributions and achievements

Contents of File for Major Reviews (CBA)

8. If any response of the Dean or designee noted areas for improvement, the self-evaluation must include a summary of progress in addressing those areas.

9. External review letters (only for tenure and/or promotion reviews)

10. Materials specified by MAU criteria

11. Materials at discretion of faculty member.

Additional Materials specified by MAU Table of Contents

Initial Letter of Appointment (if needed to document prior years of service)

Verification of Degree, Certificate, or License

Copies of Findings & Recommendations from most recent major review (tenure, promotion, or comprehensive review)

Additional Materials Specified by MAU

IDEA Student Evaluation Summary Report for each course section taught

One selected example of a syllabus for each course number/title taught

Copies of individual Annual Activity Reports for the years under review

Post-Tenure Review

Tenured faculty submit CV and Annual Activity Report with self-evaluation each year (not new)

Tenured faculty receive annual feedback concerning sufficiency of performance and progress toward promotion, if relevant (new)

Dean’s responses to Annual Activity Reports become part of the file for comprehensive post-tenure review or promotion review (new)

Comprehensive Post-Tenure Review

Comprehensive post-tenure review occurs every 6th year (no 3-year cumulative review)

Includes review by the college peer review committee and Dean

Ends with the Dean’s review if the faculty member’s performance is judged satisfactory by peer review committee and Dean. If either review is unsatisfactory, proceeds to UFEC and Provost.

Post-Tenure Review

Performance is satisfactory if it meets standards for the faculty member’s current rank.

Feedback on progress toward promotion, if applicable, is a separate judgment and does not affect the determination that performance is satisfactory at the current rank.

Consequences of unsatisfactory comprehensive review addressed in the CBA.

Final Comments For UAA faculty, the Annual Activity Report is a

much more important document than it was in the past.

Annual review by the Dean or designee in response to the Annual Activity Report will be a significant component of the faculty member’s record.

The necessity (or the opportunity) for review beyond the college level is reduced.