Review of Faculty Evaluation Processes and Criteria
Review of Faculty Evaluation Processes and Criteria
At Arizona State University
February, 2001
Members of the Task Force: Bianca Bernstein; David Burstein; Joseph Carter; Karen Gerdes; Walter Harris; Robert Ismeurt; Julie Codell, Dan Jankowski; Lauren McDermott; Elsie Moore; Mary Rothschild; Vickie Ruiz; Anne Schneider (Chair); Alan Brawley / Millie Garcia (ASU West observer).
Part I. Summary of Major Policy Changes (Brief highlights of the most significant and possibly controversial changes)
Part II. Implementation Plan (Brief summary of recommendations to Vice Provost and Academic Senate on “next steps.”
Part III. Final Report (Complete text of final report from the task force)
Part IV. Proposed Revision of ACD 506-01 through 506-13 (Detailed revisions of ACD 506-01 through 506-13) with new text in italics and text to be removed shown with strikeouts).
Part I. Summary of Major Policy Changes
Members of the Task Force: Bianca Bernstein; David Burstein; Joseph Carter; Julie Codell; Karen Gerdes; Walter Harris; Robert Ismeurt; Dan Jankowski; Lauren McDermott; Elsie Moore; Mary Rothschild; Vickie Ruiz; Anne Schneider (Chair); Millie Garcia (ASU West observer).
Standards for promotion to associate with tenure - In some (or perhaps many) units, promotion to associate professor with tenure at ASU has been based primarily on performance in research and creative activities. In some instances, mediocre or even poor teaching has been tolerated and has not been a barrier to promotion. The task force recommendeds (ACD 506-07) that promotion to associate professor and awarding of tenure should require excellence both in teaching / instructional activities and in research / creative activities, along with the promise of continued excellence. Service would have to at least be effective or satisfactory. Units, of course, may specify higher standards than those contained in ASU or ABOR documents.
Raising the standard required for teaching - The task force recommends that (in addition to student evaluations) one or more forms of peer review must be incorporated into the assessment of teaching / instruction, and that excellence in teaching / instructional activities be defined and measured as carefully as excellence in research / creative activities (ACD 506-01).
Standard for promotion to full professor. The task force recommends that promotion to full professor continue to require an overall record of excellence, including national or international recognition for scholarly achievements. Excellence and national recognition could be achieved through excellence in traditional research, or through national / international recognition for other scholarly contributions that pertain to teaching, instruction, pedagogy, public / community service, curriculum development, e-education, extended education, mentoring, or other innovative scholarly contributions consistent with the mission of the unit and ASU.
Broaden the understanding of faculty work - The categories used in faculty evaluation need to embrace all professional responsibilities of faculty, especially new and innovative forms of faculty work (such as internet publications, extended education, international assignments, curricular development, interdisciplinary and multi department programs, web-based courses, and all other faculty work that contributes to the success of the program or ASU). Thus, we have sought to broaden the types of faculty activity that should be considered in evaluation so that all professional responsibilities of faculty are valued and that faculty work that falls across the boundaries of the traditional categories is valued and “counted” during evaluation. A new section regarding joint appointments has been drafted (ACD 506-13). Issues of evaluating work outside the home unit are addressed in appropriate sections. We have clarified the factors to be included as part of “service,” so that university service will include “contributions to collegial working environments,” (which already is an ASU requirement), “contributions to affirmative action / diversity goals,” (which already is an ABOR requirement), and adherence to ethical / professional standards as defined in ABOR 204, or in ASU / unit policies.
Common definitions and common evidentiary elements - The task force is recommending that ASU policy should contain some common definitions and should specify the types of evidence that are required for faculty evaluation, although units are responsible for specifics. This should make it easier for faculty to prepare their materials for the numerous types of evaluation that are required (annual performance review, post-tenure review, probationary review, tenure and promotion to associate, and promotion to full professor). Accordingly, ACD 506-01 contains recommendations on definitions concerning the scope research/creative activities, teaching/instruction, and service; along with minimum evidentiary requirements– some of which are ABOR requirements and others would be ASU requirements.
Part II. Implementation Plan
for Policy and Procedural Changes in ASU Faculty Evaluation.
January 2001
The next steps in this process are outlined below.
Consideration of Proposed Revision of ACD 506-01 through 506-13 (Attached). This is a draft of proposed revisions that needs to be reviewed by the Vice Provost, Academic Senate leadership, and others in the university community. Some of the revisions are “housecleaning” and intended to clarify existing policy. Others reflect actual change in ASU requirements that need to go through the appropriate University approval process.
After the policy changes have been approved, the Vice Provost should request (through the Deans) that each academic unit and each college review its faculty evaluation policies (annual performance review as well as probationary, tenure, and promotion reviews) incorporating the needed changes.
The Vice Provost should undertake a comprehensive review of the revised documents from each unit and college to insure consistency and compliance with university and ABOR policy. If needed, an ad hoc committee might be helpful in carrying out this task.
The Vice Provost should provide an annual report to the Dean’s Council and facilitate a discussion regarding issues raised by the University Personnel Committee. Deans should provide an annual report and facilitate such a discussion with department chairs. There should be an on-going process for improving ASU’s faculty evaluation processes.
There are several issues pertaining to the university tenure and promotion committee. These are simply noted here with the expectation that the Vice Provost will review these matters and initiate or propose changes as needed.
1. Diversity. Some members of the task force believe that the university committee is not sufficiently diverse in terms of women, minorities, and types of scholarship (e.g., different scholarly traditions in the arts, humanities, social sciences, and hard sciences; scholarship found in traditional research compared with that found in teaching, instruction, public service or innovative practices). Changes may be needed in the way Deans / Colleges select their representatives.
2. Responsibility: It is not clear to the task force what the responsibilities of the committee are and its authority vis a vis the Provost.
3. Compliance with ASU/ ABOR policy. Still a third area of concern is how to insure that this committee actually gives as much weight to teaching as to research.
4. Workload. We recognize the extraordinary amount of work the committee undertakes. As a proposed remedy, the task force believes that the university tenure and promotion committee does not need to provide an extensive review of cases that have unanimous approvals from the department, chair, college committee, and dean. There was not much support (if any) among task force members to require that colleges provide released time to serve on the committee.
5. Several colleges have handbooks for faculty, chairs, directors, and staff that cover all the policies and practices of the unit for personnel reviews (probationary, tenure and promotion to associate, promotion to full, sabbatical leave). The VP may wish to review these and provide leadership to other colleges in developing such documents.
Part III. Review of Faculty Evaluation Processes and Criteria
At Arizona State University
Final Report
January, 2001
Members of the Task Force: Bianca Bernstein; David Burstein; Joseph Carter; Karen Gerdes; Walter Harris; Robert Ismeurt; Julie Codell, Dan Jankowski; Lauren McDermott; Elsie Moore; Mary Rothschild; Vickie Ruiz; Anne Schneider (Chair); Alan Brawley / Millie Garcia (ASU West observer).
Background: The task force was created by Vice Provost Walter Harris to review faculty evaluation policies and practices at ASU Main. The charge to the committee was as follows:
Review and codify the various university reports created in recent years including those on compensation, teaching, service, and post tenure review.
Examine current ACD promotion and tenure policies and procedures and recommend changes to achieve desired university flexibility and adaptability.
Clarify the relationship between annual reviews, probationary reviews, and tenure reviews.
Examine the concept of excellence and the number of areas of excellence required in promotion and tenure cases.
Recommend changes in the evidence structure for tenure and promotion.
Address issues of joint appointments, work in centers, and interdisciplinary work.
Address the issue of multiple career paths.
Recommend ways in which schools and departments can most effectively adhere to university policies while at the same time capitalizing on their own uniqueness.
Process
The task force met on a regular basis for approximately one year. In the late summer, 2000, presentations were made to the Chairs/Directors at their annual retreat regarding the major changes that the task force was considering. The draft final report was posted on the web site in the spring, 2000, courtesy of the Center for Learning and Teaching Excellence. As comments were received from the university community, these too were posted on the web site. The draft final report was presented to the Deans during a regular dean’s council meeting in the fall, 2000. Additionally, three open hearings were conducted during the fall semester, 2000 to receive comments and suggestions. Several colleges conducted discussions of the draft final report and numerous comments were made to the task force. We have made every effort to be responsive to suggestions although there clearly are differences of opinion on some issues.
Preamble
Arizona State University aspires to a national leadership role in defining through words and actions the prototypical metropolitan research university of the 21st century. ASU’s reputation and horizons are world-wide, but we place significant (although not exclusive) emphasis on the nature, characteristics, and needs of modern metropolitan areas, with Phoenix and the state of Arizona as examples.
The metropolitan university is one that serves the educational needs of students and is deeply engaged in the quality of life and economy of the metropolitan area and state that it serves. The research university is one that produces and disseminates new information through the scholarship of discovery, integration, application, and instruction.
Numerous studies of higher education at ASU and elsewhere in the nation have pointed to the need for insuring that faculty responsibilities and rewards are consistent with the needs of the 21st century university. Studies at ASU on teaching and service have documented the need to insure that these aspects of faculty work are properly rewarded even as we seek to enhance research and the national distinction of programs.
The growth of the internet and distance learning pose significant new opportunities for faculty. We should anticipate the need for much more rapid change and adaptation in the decades ahead. Thus, faculty reward systems must encourage innovation and willingness to move beyond the narrow boundaries of traditional academic life.
Task 1. Review and codify the various university reports created in recent years including those on compensation, teaching, service, and post tenure review.
1.1 Portions of post tenure review and salary allocation policies were codified as new sections of ACD 506 and 507 without significant integration into material already in 506. Thus, the ACD provisions which cover faculty evaluations are scattered into different sections, confusing, and in some cases, inconsistent.
We are recommending that ACD 506 be reorganized and revised. The Implementation Plan contains specific suggestions and language for such revisions. The next step in this process is for the Vice Provost and Academic Senate leadership to move forward with consideration of these changes.
1.2 Policy on peer review as part of the annual performance review process is inconsistent. (ACD 506-06) says, “...the unit’s personnel committee or other peer evaluators may be involved...” Yet, ACD 506-11says “... According to Board of Regents’ policy, an annual performance evaluation of an individual must be conducted by his/her peers, and by the department or unit head.” ABOR 6-211 B.2., which governs annual performance review, says that “the summative assessment process shall include both peer review and assessment by the department administrator and/or other appropriate administrators.”
ACD Revision: Recommend that 506-06, which describes policies pertaining to annual performance review be amended as follows (new material is in italics): “... the unit’s personnel committee or other peer evaluators may must be involved, but it is the chair’s responsibility see that these evaluations are completed by April 30 for all tenured and probationary faculty. By vote of the eligible voting members of the unit’s academic assembly, the requirement for peer involvement in annual performance evaluations may be waived and full responsibility delegated to the chair.
1.3 The teaching report suggested that teaching should be as important as research / creative activities in all forms of faculty evaluations. The task force believes that this has not actually happened . We are recommending (see Task 2 for details) that tenure and promotion to associate professor must continue to require excellence in research and, in addition, units that currently do not require excellence in teaching must do so.
1.4 The service report suggested that service should be evaluated as an integral part of faculty responsibilities; there is no evidence that this has occurred. (See Task 2 for recommendations)
Task Two. Examine current ACD promotion and tenure policies and procedures and
recommend changes to achieve desired university flexibility and adaptability.
[Note: ACD 506-07 contains current policy on evaluation of faculty for tenure and promotion. Generally, it also applies to 2nd and 4th year reviews of probationary faculty].
2.1 The task force members believe that research / creative activities often are the primary (or only) consideration for tenure and promotion decisions. For example, excellent research and mediocre teaching currently will usually produce positive decisions whereas excellent teaching and mediocre research will not. The recommendations (below) are intended to insure that ASU continues to expect excellence in research / creative activities for the tenure and promotion to associate, but also requires excellence in teaching / instruction.
2.2 ACD 506-07 should be amended to clarify the role of other factors that are taken into account in tenure, promotion, and retention (of probationary faculty). ABOR policy for annual performance evaluation requires units to take into account “departmental and/or university affirmative action goals and minority student recruitment and retention goals” (ABOR 6-211:2). ACD 506-07 specifies that evaluation of service for tenure and promotion includes “...the preservation of a collegial atmosphere at all levels of interaction within the university.” We recommend that this should be maintained as a criterion. ACD 204 contains an extensive statement of ethical standards and expectations of faculty. We recommend that these other standards should be included in tenure, promotion, and retention decisions by incorporating them into the “service” category. The Implementation Plan has incorporated these into the definition of service (See Revised ACD 506-07).
2.3 ASU and regent policy focus rather narrowly on evaluating faculty in terms of “teaching,” “research / creative activities,” and “service.” Yet, much of what faculty do involves the integration of these or falls outside the traditional and rather narrow understanding of these terms. Policies must be flexible enough to incorporate faculty activities related to rapidly changing technologies. ASU needs to insure that all professional responsibilities faculty undertake on behalf of their unit must be considered in all faculty evaluation processes, including tenure and promotion decisions as well as annual performance evaluations. In addition, ASU policy should insure that all forms of scholarly activity including the scholarship of instruction, discovery, application, and integration, must be considered in all faculty evaluation processes.
2.4 There are some common elements among all of the various faculty evaluations, such as the categories (e.g., teaching, research, service); the definitions of these; the expectation of continued excellence or continued professional development. Those aspects of evaluation need to be placed in one overview section (probably 506-01) or they need to be repeated within the section on tenure, promotion, retention as well as the section on probationary reviews, and the one on annual performance review.
.
ACD Revision: Recommend that ACT 506-07 be amended so that excellence in teaching and research / creative are both required. The Implementation Plan includes a thorough revision of 506-01 so that it incorporates definitions of faculty work along with types of evidence that must be submitted by faculty. Because of considerable concern that the changes recommended by the task force could have the unintended effect of diluting the emphasis on research, we have retained the ACD requirement (ACD 506-05) that promotion to full professor requires national distinction for scholarship and also have incorporated that requirement into 506-07. The critical sections of Revised ACD 506-07 are noted below (in bold, new material is in italics):
a. A person is promoted, granted tenure, or retained on the basis of excellent performance and the promise of continued excellence.
These criteria must include:
1. Quality of teaching and instruction effectiveness (Summary data of student evaluations must be included as one type of evidence of teaching effectiveness. Each academic unit shall have one instrument for student evaluation of teaching that shall be used by all faculty in that unit..
2. Quality of research and publication or other creative endeavors
3. Quality of service to the profession, to the university, and to the community (local, state, and national or international) and
4. The interests of higher education in Arizona
b. [Add new section and renumber] Promotion to associate professor and awarding of tenure require an overall record of excellence and the promise of continued excellence. The candidate must have achieved excellence (taking into account the rank) in both teaching / instructional activities as well as in research / creative activities. Service must at least be “satisfactory” or “effective.” Units in which public service is a central aspect of their mission also may require excellence in public service.
c. [Add new section and renumber] Promotion to full professor must be based on an overall record of excellence in performance of professional responsibilities, (taking into account the distribution of effort as part of any negotiated flexible performance agreements), and the promise of continued effectiveness in professional development. For promotion to full professor, exceptional quality of service should be assessed primarily in relation to service to the public.
d. Normally, an overall record of excellence should require national or international recognition for scholary achievement in one or more areas of faculty endeavor.
2.5. We have drafted the definitions for types of faculty evaluation and incorporated these into 506-01.
Types of Reviews
Annual performance reviews (acd506-06; abor 6-211)- annual performance reviews are conducted each year. These reviews meet the ABOR requirement for an annual assessment of faculty performance that is both formative and summative. They also serve as the basis for allocation of merit-based salary increments and, for tenured faculty, this is the first step in the post tenure review process. Annual performance reviews differ in important ways from probationary, tenure, and promotion (see ACD 506-05).
Post tenure reviews (acd506-11; abor6-201) - the post tenure review process begins either with annual performance reviews or with program reviews. If a faculty member is found to be “unsatisfactory” in one or more areas of evaluation, or overall, the procedures of the post tenure review must be followed.
Program reviews are conducted every six or seven years and assess the performance of the entire unit. These also cover the contribution of every faculty member. If a faculty member is found to be “unsatisfactory,” the procedures of the post tenure review process must be followed.
Probationary reviews - (acd506-03) - reviews for renewal of probationary appointments are conducted in the 2nd and 4th year for each tenure-track faculty member to assess progress toward tenure. For associate or full professors without tenure, the review is conducted in the 2nd year.
Tenure and promotion to associate - (acd506-07; abor 6-201) reviews for tenure and promotion to associate professor must be conducted during the sixth probationary year, but may be conducted sooner if the faculty member is nominated (and agrees), or is self-nominated. For associate or full professors without tenure, the tenure review occurs no later than the 4th year.
Promotion to full professor - reviews for promotion to full professor do not occur at any particular time and there is no imperative to seek promotion to full professor. Consideration for promotion to full professor may be initiated by nomination (and acceptance) or by self nomination.
In Revised ACD 506-05 we have incorporated a statement of the differences between these reviews.
In Revised ACD 506-01 we have developed suggested statements on the scope of teaching/instruction, research/creative activities, and service. This section also includes the types of evidence that are required as part of the evaluation processes. We strongly suggest that unit written policies governing annual performance review also utilize these definitions and evidentiary items.
Task 3. Clarify the relationship between annual reviews, probationary reviews,
and tenure reviews.
[Note: ASU policy regarding these types of reviews is found in five different sections of ACD (506-05 Promotion; 506-06 Annual and Probationary Evaluations for Faculty; 506-07 Evaluation for Tenure and Promotion; 506-11 Post Tenure Review Process; 507 Performance-Based Salary Plan). ABOR policy contains important references to faculty evaluation in several places, too, including 6-201 (page 9ff) and 6-211. 6-201 covers Duties and Responsibilities of faculty; Post Tenure Review; Promotion, Tenure, and Renewal; and Dismissal or Suspension. 6-211 covers annual performance review.
3.1 Current policy (506-06) is not clear about the connection (if any) between annual performance evaluation and the probationary, tenure, and promotion evaluations. For example, (506-06) says that the annual performance evaluation letter sent by the department head to untenured faculty must include a statement saying that “the procedures for the annual evaluation are not the same as the procedures for a tenure or promotion review.” On the other hand, this section also says: (506-06) “Annual evaluations may also be cumulatively considered in tenure, promotion, termination, and release decisions. However, they should not be confused with the more important probationary reviews.”
3.2 The current organization of ACD adds to confusion about the different types of reviews. Annual performance review criteria, for example, are covered in three different sections (506-06, 506-11, and 507). Confusion between annual performance evaluations and probationary reviews (2nd and 4th year reviews) is caused partly because these are covered within one section of ACD (506-06) and at times it is difficult to tell what the intended relationship actually is.
3.3 ASU policies refer to six types of faculty evaluation even though there actually are only four. ACD in one place or another refers to annual performance evaluations (or annual performance reviews), post tenure review, merit review, probationary review, tenure with promotion to associate, and promotion to full professor). It takes a careful reading of all the sections to realize that the annual performance evaluation serves a triple purpose: it is the required yearly evaluation of all faculty; it is the first step in the post tenure review; and it serves as the basis for merit pay allocations.
3.4 The task force has determined that, even though it might be desirable and efficient to have a seamless process across all types of reviews, an entirely seamless process is not possible without significant changes in processes, criteria, definitions, scope, and purposes of the evaluations. For example: the level of performance in annual performance evaluations is determined by the chair/director whereas the other three (probationary, tenure, and promotion) all involve independent assessments by four or five others (peers or a peer committee, chair/director, college committee, dean, and university committee for tenure and promotion), with the final decision actually made by the Provost. In terms of evidence, there is significantly more information available for probationary, tenure, and promotion reviews than for annual performance evaluations. Also, tenure and promotion decisions involve reviews by persons outside of ASU whereas annual performance reviews do not. Annual performance reviews cover only three years, whereas tenure and promotion covers the entire academic / professional career of the faculty member. In addition, annual performance reviews have both a formative and summative purpose– formative in the sense of providing useful guidance and encouragement to faculty; summative in assessing the performance over the previous one to three year time period. Tenure and promotion reviews are summative.
Finally, annual performance reviews must make distinctions among “unsatisfactory,” “satisfactory,” “merit,” (and in some units, higher-level categories called “high merit” or “exemplary” or “merit plus.” Tenure and promotion must determine whether the person has an overall record of excellence and the promise of continued excellence. The probationary reviews at 2nd and 4th year much determine whether the person should be given a renewal contract, a conditional contract, or dismissed. These reviews typically focus on whether the person is “on track” for a positive tenure decision and what needs to be done over the next few years to increase the probability of a positive tenure decision.
For these reasons, we do not recommend changes that would link annual performance reviews to probationary, tenure, or promotion decisions.
Recommendation: ACD should contain a new section on “common definitions and elements.” We have drafted such a section (see ACD 506-01).
Task 4. Examine the concept of excellence and the number of areas of
excellence required in promotion and tenure cases.
4.1 Current ACD and ABOR policy on tenure and promotion use the concept “excellence” throughout, and it would be almost impossible to use some other term as the overall standard of faculty evaluation for tenure and promotion.
4.2 (See 2.4) The task force is recommending that tenure and promotion should require an overall record of excellence and the promise of continued excellence; but should specifically state that excellence in teaching and instructional activities; as well as in research and creative activities is required. The criteria for promotion to full professor should specify an overall record of excellence, taking into account the distribution of effort and the continued professional development of the individual. For promotion to full professor, exceptional quality of service should be assessed primarily in relation to service to the public.
4.3 Due to the expressed concerns regarding an unintended devaluation of research as a result of these changes in ACD, we have maintained the requirement for a national reputation for scholarly work as part of the standard expectation for promotion to full professor (ACD 506-05). We have also explicitly added this statement in 506-07 where promotion procedures are discussed fully. We have tried to make explicit that the requirement for national distinction can be the result of any form of scholarship– that is, the scholarship of discovery, instruction, application, or integration (to use Boyer’s terms). Thus, national reputations built on teaching or public service, for example, should be weighed appropriately.
Task 5. Recommend changes in the evidence structure for tenure and promotion.
5.1 We will suggest that university-level policy should specify common evidentiary elements for evaluation of faculty work (see Revised ACD 506-01), even though maintaining the understanding that some reviews require outside letters, for example, and others do not.
5.2 Common evidence requires common definitions of terms (see Revised ACD 506-01).
5.3 To insure that teaching actually is as important as research/creative activities in granting tenure, we need to improve the evaluation system and insure that departments / colleges actually insist on excellence in both. Multiple tools are needed here, including the suggested changes in language for tenure and promotion, changes in the evidence so that the number of products for teaching is the same as the number for research, specific requirements regarding peer review of instructional materials; and specific information on what constitutes “evidence” regarding the quality of teaching / instruction. (See Revised 506-01).
Additional Recommendations
When a higher level committee believes there are problems with the materials or processes within a unit, the candidate should not be disadvantaged; but the procedures used within that unit or college should be reviewed. We suggest that the Vice Provost annually provide to the Deans issues raised by the University Personnel Committee regarding the way tenure and promotion procedures are conducted, including issues specific to their college. Deans should bring these matters to the attention of the chairs/directors in their colleges.
There are several issues pertaining to the university tenure and promotion committee. These are simply noted here with the expectation that the Vice Provost will review these matters and initiate or propose changes as needed.
1. Diversity. Some members of the task force believe that the university committee is not sufficiently diverse in terms of women, minorities, and types of scholarship (e.g., different scholarly traditions in the arts, humanities, social sciences, and hard sciences; scholarship found in traditional research compared with that found in teaching, instruction, public service or innovative practices). Changes may be needed in the way Deans / Colleges select their representatives.
2. It is not clear to the task force what the responsibilities of the committee are and its authority vis a vis the Provost.
3. Still a third area of concern is how to insure that this committee actually gives as much weight to teaching as to research.
4. We recognize the extraordinary amount of work the committee undertakes. As a proposed remedy, the task force believes that the university tenure and promotion committee does not need to provide an extensive review of cases that have unanimous approvals from the department, chair, college committee, and dean.
5. Several colleges have handbooks for faculty, chairs, directors, and staff that cover all the policies and practices of the unit for personnel reviews (probationary, tenure and promotion to associate, promotion to full, sabbatical leave). The VP may wish to review these and provide leadership to other colleges in developing such documents.
Tasks 6. Address issues of joint appointments, work in centers, and interdisciplinary activities.
Task 7. Address the issue of multiple career paths.
6.1. Special Situations for Faculty Promotion, Tenure, and Evaluation
Faculty evaluations for the purpose of promotion and tenure as well as annual evaluations for merit increases and, if applicable, post-tenure review that occur within a traditional discipline-based setting can be handled by processes that exist, or are being considered for revisions by a university task force. During the course of its work the task force has noted that these traditional processes are based on a model that does not adequately reflect certain organizational and programmatic realities of a modern university. The result is an increasing number of special situations that are either treated in an ad-hoc manner or do not receive the uniform attention and consideration that should underlie any evaluation of faculty members.
The purpose of this section is to provide some commentary relative to the generation and/or amplification of processes for faculty promotion, tenure, and evaluation in the presence of several special situations that have been identified by the task force as being particularly relevant to ASU. Adoption of the recommendations that follow may require changes in ACD 110, 505, and 506505-02 and ACD 110. Suggestions have been incorporated into the proposed revision of ACD (see Revised ACD 506-13; Revised ACD 506-07; Revised ACD 506-06).
6.2. Joint Appointments. The major complexity of joint appointments for faculty is the fact that multiple units are (or should be) involved in the evaluation of individuals holding them. The task force recommends that evaluations in the case of a joint appointment should be based on a formal Memorandum of Understanding. This agreement must be approved by the concerned individual, the involved units (academic departments or programs, centers, and institutes), and colleges. Any changes to such an agreement must be approved by all concerned parties. The memorandum must contain the following elements:
The identification of the home unit for the individual. For cases involving an academic department or program and a center or institute, the department or program is the tenure unit, or home unit. The home unit has the lead role in the evaluation of the individual. Other involved units also participate fully in any evaluation. Raises for merit should equal the sum of the raises recommended by the home unit and other concerned units, subject to the usual university approvals.
The expectation for the individual in research and creative activity, teaching, and service in each unit. In effect, this requirement sets the “weights” to be used in any evaluation.
A time period for the agreement. The recommended time period is two years after the date of the initial appointment, except for tenure-track faculty for whom agreements should be reevaluated at the time of the usual second-year and fourth-year reviews. Any subsequent changes must be approved by the concerned individual, and the involved units (academic departments, centers, and institutes) and colleges.
6.3. Affiliated Faculty. This classification is less formal than a joint appointment and is non-contractual (current ACD 505-02). The major issue is that there does not appear to be any systematic recognition within home units for substantial professional work affiliated faculty may do outside of their home unit. The task force recommends that the option of having any work performed as an affiliated faculty member included in any home-unit evaluation should rest with the concerned faculty member. Affiliated faculty who wish to should document their “outside” contributions within their annual distribution of effort in their home unit. At the option of the concerned faculty member, academic chairs should include individuals as external evaluators in promotion and tenure cases who are qualified to provide meaningful input on the particular work done in an affiliated status.
The status of faculty who perform professional work in centers or institutes can be similar to that of affiliated faculty. There is a need for a process for establishing such affiliations that addresses the expectation of the center or institute and its approval by the home unit. The inclusion of this effort in any evaluation should be at the choice of the faculty member. Academic chairs should ensure that external evaluators in promotion and tenure cases are chosen in consultation with the center or institute director if the faculty member so wishes.
6.4. Interdisciplinary Work. Since ASU values interdisciplinary work, there is a need to ensure that contributions in this area are suitably evaluated and weighed in reaching overall conclusions about faculty performance. These contributions can include participation as a core faculty member in an interdisciplinary program outside of their home unit as well as in other interdisciplinary activities. Both possibilities it should be considered in the home-unit evaluation of faculty members involved in such work. Discussion with their department chair prior to initiating such work in order to facilitate subsequent evaluation may be useful. It is the responsibility of faculty members to identify and explain their personal contributions to such work. At the option of the concerned faculty member, academic chairs should include individuals as external evaluators in promotion and tenure cases who are qualified to provide meaningful input on particular interdisciplinary work. Non-Traditional Career Paths. For a variety of reasons it is not unusual for individuals to seek faculty appointments at levels less than full-time. Since there is no reason to expect this possibility to become less important, indeed, the opposite is true, this factor must be included in the processes for evaluation of faculty. Expectations must be suitably weighed in a manner that reflects the individual’s official level of appointment.
6.5. Faculty in Administrative Roles. Faculty members often assume, for a limited period of time, a formal administrative role. These appointments may include an expectation of a non-zero level of activity in research and creative activity, teaching, and service that is lower than the norm for full-time faculty. There is a need to ensure that both contributions, as a faculty member and as an administrator, are suitably evaluated and weighed in reaching overall conclusions about performance. Particular situations in this example are likely so different from each other that an all-encompassing policy that governs the evaluations of individuals occupying them is probably unattainable. However, the task force recommends that the faculty portion of their responsibilities, whatever part of the whole it might be, should be evaluated by the existing policies for evaluation of part-time faculty.
Task 8. Recommend ways in which schools and departments can most effectively adhere to university policies while at the same time capitalizing on their own uniqueness.
The task force makes the following recommendations:
ASU’s Vice Provost and Academic Senate should consider the changes suggested here.
Each unit and each College should review its personnel policies for tenure and promotion as well as for annual performance review / post tenure review, incorporating any changes mandated by the Senate or other changes suggested by this task force.
The Vice Provost undertake a comprehensive review of the revised documents from each unit and college to insure consistency and compliance with university and ABOR policy.
Part IV. Proposed Revision of ACD 506-01 through 506-13
[Note: current text is in regular type; proposed elimination is indicated by strikeouts; proposed changes are in italics]
ACD 506-01 - Types of Faculty, Types of Performance Evaluation, and Common Elements Faculty Status
Purpose: To distinguish tenure track (probationary), tenured, and temporary faculty titles; to identify types of performance evaluation, and to specify common and required elements
Source: OSVPP and Academic Senate
Applicability: Faculty
Policy:
Except as provided in ACD 506-02, “Probationary Appointments,” the following principles will determine eligibility for probationary appointments and tenure:
All faculty members with appointments as assistant professors, associate professors, or professors without designations that make the appointments temporary will hold either probationary appointments or appointments with tenure.
All other appointments (including appointments at the rank of instructor) will be temporary.
Types of Faculty
Any person appointed as an assistant professor, associate professor, or professor is either tenured or tenure-eligible as designated by the notice of appointment, except as provided below. Tenure eligible faculty are also referred to as “probationary” faculty and “tenure-track” faculty.
Any person appointed to a faculty position designated as ‘visiting,’ ‘adjunct,’ ‘research,’ ‘clinical,’ or such other titles(s) as may be designated by the university, shall not be tenured or tenure eligible and shall have no expectation of continued employment beyond the end of the current appointment period.
ABOR policy (6-201, p. 7) provides that persons appointed as instructors may be either tenure eligible or not, as specified in their letter of appointment. ASU policy is that persons appointed as instructors are not tenure eligible; however, those hired as assistant professors who have not finished the required degree become instructors, “not on track,” until the degree is finished and their title is changed to “assistant professor.”
[Explanation of changes: this language is clearer and except for the second sentence, is taken directly from ABOR 6-201, p. 7. The terms “probationary,” “tenure eligible,” and “tenure track are used interchangeably in ASU and ABOR policy].
Types of Performance Evaluation for Tenure-Eligible and Tenured Faculty
Annual performance reviews (acd506-06; abor 6-211)- annual performance reviews are conducted each year. These reviews meet the ABOR requirement for an annual assessment of faculty performance that is both formative and summative. They also serve as the basis for allocation of merit-based salary increments and, or tenured faculty, this is the first step in the post tenure review process. Annual performance reviews differ in important ways from probationary, tenure, and promotion reviews (see ACD 506-05).
Post tenure reviews (acd506-11; abor6-201) - the post tenure review process begins either with annual performance reviews or with program reviews. If a faculty member is found to be “unsatisfactory” in one or more areas of evaluation, or overall, the procedures of the post tenure review must be followed.
Program reviews are conducted every six or seven years and assess the performance of the entire unit. These also cover the contribution of every faculty member. If a faculty member is found to be “unsatisfactory,” the procedures of the post tenure review process must be followed. At ASU, program reviews are used to meet the ABOR requirement that students and community members must be involved in the post tenure review process.
Probationary reviews - (acd506-03) - reviews for renewal of probationary appointments are conducted in the 2nd and 4th year for each tenure-track faculty member to assess progress toward tenure. For associate or full professors without tenure, the review is conducted in the 2nd year.
Tenure and promotion to associate - (acd506-07; abor 6-201) reviews for tenure and promotion to associate professor must be conducted during the sixth probationary year, but may be conducted sooner if the faculty member is nominated (and agrees), or is self-nominated. For associate or full professors without tenure, the tenure review occurs no later than the 4th year.
Promotion to full professor - reviews for promotion to full professor do not occur at any particular time and there is no imperative to seek promotion to full professor. Consideration for promotion to full professor may be initiated by nomination (and acceptance) or by self nomination.
Common Elements; Required Evidence
All performance evaluations involve assessment of faculty professional responsibilities, particularly as it pertains to quality of teaching and instruction; quality of research and publication or other creative endeavors; and quality of service to the profession, university, and community (local, state, and national or international).
University policy provides some recommended definitions of the scope of faculty work and minimum standards of evidence.
A. Teaching and Instruction -
(1) Teaching and instruction go beyond classroom teaching, mentoring, advising, directing independent study, theses, and dissertations. Teaching and instruction also include such things as curriculum development, technologically enhanced courses, extended education, learning outcome assessment activities, distance learning courses and other instructional or pedagogical innovations appropriate to the unit. All other activities that impart knowledge to students for credit that contribute to the unit’s teaching and instructional mission should be incorporated in unit definitions.
(2) Evidence of the quality of teaching and instruction must be assessed through multiple indicators including at least the following: a summary of student evaluations collected and reported in accord with university and unit procedures; a peer or chair review of instructional materials (such as syllabi, assignments, web-based courses), and effectiveness in professional development including effective responses to legitimate issues regarding teaching effectiveness. The evaluation of instructional materials should take into account such things as student learning, currency of course, contribution of the course to the unit’s curriculum, pedagogy, and the scholarly of instruction. It may involve observation of teaching.
(3) Unit policy should specify what the faculty are expected to submit for review of teaching / instruction for each type of review. Review materials must include (i) a summary table of courses taught, number of students in each, and a summary of student evaluations (ii) instructional materials as specified by the unit, (iii) a statement of teaching philosophy and any professional development activities undertaken in relation to teaching / instruction, and (iv) two products that reflect the quality of teaching / instruction, as specified in the unit policies.
B. Service
(1) Service encompasses service to the university, service to the academic profession, and public / community service. Service to the university includes the individual’s expected contribution to internal committee work, faculty governance activities, and the preservation of a collegial atmosphere at all levels of interaction within the university, departmental and/or university affirmative action goals and minority student recruitment and retention goals, and ethical / professional behavior as defined in ASU, ABOR, or unit policy. Service to the academic profession includes external reviews for journals, offices held in academic professional organizations, and other activities as determined by the unit. Public / community service For promotion and tenure, exceptional quality of service should be assessed primarily in relation to service to the public and should be is basically an extension of the faculty member’s research and teaching activity to the larger community outside the university. For annual performance review that determine performance pay considerations, Outstanding service to the department, college, university, and profession as well as public service, must be encouraged and rewarded. Evaluation of service requires the assessment of quality as well as quantity.
(2) Evaluation of service requires the assessment of quality as well as quantity. Each component of service should be evaluated in terms appropriate to it. Service to the university should be assessed in terms of impact on the well-being of the unit and university; service to the academic profession should be assessed in terms of its overall value for the national distinction of the unit. Contributions to affirmative action / diversity and to collegial working environments are assessed by peers and department chairs/directors. The evaluation of public / community service should be based on the contribution of the service to the community organization or partner.
(3) Unit policy should specify the types of information about service that are needed for each type of review, and must specify processes for obtaining such information. For probationary, tenure, and promotion reviews, units for whom public / community service is an important part of their mission, may require faculty to provide two products reflecting the quality of their public service; and these would be forwarded to the Provost as part of the overall dossier
C. Research and Creative Activities
(1) Research and creative activities are defined as intellectual work whose significance is validated by academic peers or other appropriate outside authorities, and which is communicated to peers or other appropriate persons. Creative work is, by definition, intellectual work; intellectual work is, by definition, creative. Such work in its diverse forms is based on a high level of professional expertise; must give evidence of originality; must be documented and validated through peer review or critique; and must be communicated in appropriate ways so as to have an impact on or significance for the discipline itself or for publics beyond the university. Research and creative activities encompass all scholarly work, including the scholarship of discovery, integration, application, and instruction.
(2) Evidence of the quality of research and creative activities can be measured by indicators such as the scholarly standards reflected in the work; impact on intended audiences; importance, innovativeness, and relevance of the work as suggested by external peer reviewers or other appropriate authorities; quality of the journals, publishers, conferences, or other communicative outlets; citations of the work; longevity of influence and other similar indicators appropriate to the discipline and unit. The scholarly aspects of all professional responsibilities undertaken on behalf of the unit including teaching and other instructional activities; research and creative activities; service or any other assignments may be assessed within this category if provided for in unit policy. “Products” in the form of traditional publications, performances, exhibits, technological instructional materials, and other traditional and non traditional scholarly “products” should be included in the evaluation.
(3) . Unit policies should specify materials that faculty are expected to submit. For probationary, tenure, and promotion reviews, copies of two products must be provided by the faculty member for review and are forwarded with the materials to the Provost’s office. .
506-02: Probationary Appointments and Reappointment
Purpose: To describe probationary appointments and reappointments
Sources: ABOR 6-102; OSVPP
Applicability: Faculty
Policy:
Purpose of Probation
The purpose of probation is to provide the probationary faculty member with an opportunity to develop and demonstrate the ability to meet the criteria for tenure at the institution and to provide the institution the opportunity to evaluate the abilities of the faculty member.
Commencement of the Probationary Period
Except as provided below, commencement of the probationary period will coincide with initial appointment. When an individual’s appointment begins in the spring semester, the tenure clock begins in the fall semester that follows the spring semester in which employment commenced.
If individuals who are hired as assistant professors with the expectation that all degree requirements will be completed prior to the beginning of their employment fail to complete their degree requirements by the beginning of the academic year, they will begin teaching with the rank of instructor and receive a lower salary. If they complete their requirements in the fall, individuals may make one of two choices. They may elect to have their title changed to assistant professor during the fall semester and their salary increased by $1000 effective as of the date of completion and prorated as of that date. (The academic year will be considered the first year of their six-year probationary period.)
They may elect to remain an instructor, with no increase in salary, for the fall semester, then elect to become an assistant professor with a base salary increase for the spring semester. (However, the six-year probationary period will not begin until the fall semester after the individual’s completion of the degree.) If individuals in this situation fail to complete their degree requirements within this first year, their employment may be terminated.
Duration of the Probationary Period
All full-time faculty appointed at the assistant professor rank have a maximum of six years in which to apply for tenure. All full-time faculty appointed at the associate professor or professor rank have a maximum of four years in which to apply for tenure.
When probationary appointees are granted promotion to associate professor or professor, the appointment at the higher rank will be with tenure.
Established faculty members, especially those who have had previous teaching experience and desire to be considered for tenure earlier than the date listed in their appointment letters, should consult with their department chairs and/or deans about the possibility of being reviewed and recommended for tenure prior to their final probationary year. Early promotion and tenure reviews should include consideration of previous experience at ASU or in a tenure-track position at a peer institution.
A one-year leave of absence granted for purely personal reasons having no significant relationship to the professional activity of the faculty member may be exempted from the probationary period, if requested by the faculty member and deemed appropriate by the institution. Such exemption must be agreed to by both parties, in writing, at the time the leave is granted. A one-year leave granted for professional reasons, such as fellowships, visiting appointments, and research grants, will not interrupt the sequence of probationary years. Any additional leaves during the probationary period may be exempted from the probationary period if agreed to by both parties, in writing, at the time the leave is granted.
Extension of the Normal Probationary Period
Untenured faculty members may request, no later than the fall semester of their fifth year (i.e., the year prior to the year their tenure decision will be made), a one-year extension of the probationary period. If such a request is granted, the faculty member shall not be subject to additional scholarship requirements at the time of the tenure decision. The request should be made in writing and should be forwarded through the chair and supervising dean, who will consult with appropriate personnel committees and forward the request, with recommendations, to the senior vice president and provost, who will make the final decision. The approval process must include an agreement for the timing of remaining probationary reviews.
The request for a one-year extension could be built around either of the following circumstances:
A one-year or one-semester unpaid leave of absence granted for purely personal reasons and having no significant relationship to the professional activity of the faculty member. Such a leave may extend the probationary period by one year if requested by the faculty member and deemed appropriate by the institution. The extension must be agreed to by both parties in writing at the time the leave is granted.
A faculty member may request a one-year, good-cause extension of the probationary period while continuing employment. Good cause refers to personal circumstances that are likely to interfere with a faculty member’s efforts to carry on scholarship at the expected rate. Good cause includes, but is not limited to serious illness or other disability and exceptional family care responsibilities such as pregnancy, childbirth, adoption, or being the primary care giver of a minor child or other individual who requires extraordinary care and is dependent upon the employee for that care.
The request for a one-year extension of the maximum probationary period for academic professionals can also be built around either of these circumstances (see ACD 506–03 “Reappointment of Academic Professionals”). [Explanation: this sentence is removed from here as this section does not apply to academic professionals and this is covered elsewhere]
Probationary Period for Part-Time Faculty Members Faculty Who Are Less than 100% FTE
An individual working in a tenure-track position 50 percent FTE for one or more years may have his or her probationary period extended accordingly. For example, if an individual is working halftime in expectation of earning a full-time tenured position, two half-time years will equal one year of full-time service, i.e., an individual working continuously at 50 percent FTE would have a maximum of 12 years in which to earn tenure in a full-time position. An individual working 50 percent time for an odd number of years would be credited with working part-time up to the next even number of years because the tenure review process occurs only once a year and does not accommodate credit for half-years.
The performance expectations for scholarship, research, and service for an individual with an extended probationary period would be no greater than they are for individuals with a regular probationary period. [Explanation of change: the phrase “scholarship, research, and service” is removed here and elsewhere because faculty responsibilities are broader than this].
If there is a situation in which a unit and an individual agree that the individual wishes to work on a for a part time (more than 50 percent, but less than 100 percent FTE) tenure line, then the individual would be reviewed for a tenured part-time position no later than the sixth year of equivalent part-time FTE work. The performance expectations for scholarship, research, and service for an individual working part-time will be proportionately less than for individuals working full-time.
At the time that approval for part-time work is given, an agreement must be drawn up and signed by both parties, the supervising dean, and the Office of the Senior Vice President and Provost stating whether the individual is working for tenure in a part-time or a full-time line. The agreement must also identify the maximum time limit for the tenure review.
2nd and 4th Year Review of Probationary Faculty
[Explanation: The following information is from 506-06 and has been moved here because it fits better in this topic rather than with “annual performance reviews” which is where it has been located].
Probationary reviews are conducted for the purpose of giving faculty members an accurate appraisal of their progress toward earning tenure. Faculty who have not yet achieved tenure are to have probationary reviews every two years. This means that an assistant professor will have a probationary review in the fall of the second and fourth years, with the tenure review being conducted no later than the sixth year. An associate professor will have a probationary review in the fall of the second year with the tenure review being conducted no later than the fourth year.
Because of their purpose, these reviews should closely resemble the actual tenure review except that outside letters are not sought. The department personnel committee, the department chair, the college personnel committee, and the college dean all review materials prepared according to instructions received from the Office of the Senior Vice President and Provost. Reviewers at each level write formal assessments. These reports are forwarded to the senior vice president and provost, who makes the final decision regarding termination or retention. Copies of all reports are to be given to the probationary faculty member within 30 days after the Office of the Senior Vice President and Provost notifies the supervising dean of the retention decision.
Note: Decisions of non retention are not restricted to the years of the probationary reviews; they may be made in any year during the probationary period. Faculty may apply for tenure in the year of a regular probationary review. If a faculty member applies for tenure, the same materials may be used.
If a faculty member has an early tenure review in a year originally scheduled for a probationary review and the tenure decision is negative, the same materials may be used for the probationary review.
If a faculty member receives a conditional contract, then either a probationary or tenure review must be conducted the following year so that an accurate appraisal can be made of how well the conditions have been met.
Criteria for Retention of Probationary Faculty
[Explanation: The following is from 506-07 and is summarized (paraphrased) here to put all the relevant information about probationary faculty reviews into one place]
The review must be consistent with the definitions and common evidentiary elements described in ACD 506-01 (as revised). The criteria for retention must be analogous to those used for tenure and promotion decisions in the unit, taking into account the years in rank at ASU. ACD 506-07 provides that:
“A person is promoted, granted tenure, or retained on the basis of excellent performance and the promise of continued excellence. These criteria must include: quality of teaching and instruction; effectiveness (Summary data of student evaluations must be included as one type of evidence of teaching effectiveness. Each academic unit shall have one instrument for student evaluation of teaching that shall be used by all faculty in that unit.)
2. quality of research and publication or other creative endeavors; 3. quality of service to the profession, to the university, and to the community (local, state, and national or international), and 4. the interests of higher education in Arizona.....8. The denial of promotion, tenure, or retention, however, need not be construed as due to failure or poor performance on the candidate’s part. Considerations such as the need for a different area of specialization or for a new emphasis; the lack of a continuing position; the need to shift a position or resources to another department; or the opportunity for a more vigorous program in teaching, research, or service may dictate that the individual not be retained or granted tenure.
Conclusion of the Probationary Period
During the final probationary year, the department and/or college to which a probationary faculty member is attached must determine, according to established criteria, whether to recommend that tenure be granted to that individual. The faculty member must have the opportunity to present evidence in support of the granting of tenure. Judgment must be based on established criteria. The final decisions on promotion, tenure, and retention shall be made by the president or designee after considering all evaluations, recommendations, and other evidence. (Explanation of change: this probably should be removed from here so that all criteria and process information on tenure and promotion to associate can be located in one place within ACD rather than scattered in several places].
For appointees who are granted tenure, the Notice of Appointment for the following year and all succeeding years will be expressly “with tenure”; annual reappointment will only cease as provided in ASU and ABOR policies, ACD 508, “Severance.”ABOR 6-201. For appointees who are not granted tenure, the Notice of Appointment for the following year will be a terminal contract. [Explanation of change: note: acd508 pertains to academic professionals, not faculty. To insure that all ABOR policy that is relevant to the loss of tenure, it may be best to simply say “ABOR” policy, as reasons for removal may be (or become) scattered in policy documents.]
ACD 506-04 Appointments with Tenure
Appointments with tenure are those with continuous annual reappointment until retirement, resignation, release for budgetary reasons, release for reasons of educational policy change, or dismissal for cause, each as provided in ASU and ABOR policy. Personnel Policies and Procedures for Faculty (italics in original). Attainment of tenure can only occur through specific notification from the president and may not result from inaction or inadvertence.
[Explanation of change: This section has been moved out of the probationary appointment section as it was hard to find when mixed in with that lengthy discussion of probationary appointments. The “ASU and ABOR” policy was inserted rather than “personnel policies and procedures for faculty,” as I could not locate any document with this title.]
ACD 506-05: Promotion
Purpose: To describe promotion policies and procedures
Sources: ABOR 6-201; OSVPP
Applicability: Faculty
Policy: The purpose of promotion is to recognize and reward accomplishment. Promotion is awarded on the basis of proven excellence rather than on a lack of deficiencies. Promotions of nontenured probationary (tenure-eligible) faculty to the ranks of associate professor or professor will be accompanied with tenure. Demotion does not occur.
Instructor to Assistant Professor
Promotion from instructor to assistant professor will not normally occur, except where the faculty member has made substantial professional progress as defined by departmental and college criteria subsequent to the individual’s appointment as instructor. Change in title from instructor to assistant professor is made for a person hired as an assistant professor in a tenure-eligible position but who had not finished the doctoral degree at the time of appointment, as described in ACD 506-02.
Assistant Professor to Associate Professor
Promotion from assistant professor to associate professor will be granted if the faculty member has successfully met established criteria. An assistant professor may apply for promotion before the final probationary year if he or she feels that the established criteria for the full probationary period have been met before the end of the period. An assistant professor whose intent is to remain at the university must apply for promotion during the sixth year of service as an assistant professor at ASU.
Associate Professor to Professor
Promotion from associate professor to professor must be based on established departmental and college criteria. An associate professor need never apply for promotion to professor, and many successful careers are built at the associate level. Although there is no set time line for promotion from associate professor to full professor, it would be unusual for an individual to accumulate the expected record of accomplishment recognized at the national level without working for several years at the associate level.
506-06 Annual and Probationary Evaluations for Faculty
Purpose: To define responsibilities in annual evaluation procedures
Source: OSVPP
Applicability: Faculty
Policy
Each unit must have written policies describing the process, criteria, and appeals used in annual performance reviews. These written plans must explain how annual performance reviews are used in salary adjustments and in initiating performance improvement plans required under post tenure review. The unit’s written plans must be approved by the voting members of the unit’s academic assembly as specified by the unit policies, the Dean, and the Provost. College plans must be approved by the voting members of the college’s academic assembly as specified by College policy; and by the Provost. Unit plants should incorporate definitions and evidence as described in ACD 506-01.
Purposes of Annual Performance reviews
Annual performance reviews serve three distinct purposes: (1) To comply with ABOR requirements for an annual review of all faculty with the purpose of encouraging the faculty member to establish goals for continued academic progress, (ABOR 6-211) (2) To guide decisions about salary allocation (ACD 507 and ABOR 6-201), and (3) for tenured faculty, as the first step in the post tenure review process (ACD 506-11 and ABOR 6-201). Because the annual performance review must serve three distinct but related purposes, the unit’s written plan must incorporate ABOR requirements for an annual assessment (ABOR 6-211), as well as the requirements specified in policies governing salary adjustments (ACD 507) and post tenure review (ABOR 6-201 and ACD 506-11).
Relationship to Probationary Reviews, Tenure, and Promotion Reviews
Annual evaluations do not cumulate into may also be cumulatively considered in tenure, promotion, termination, and or release decisions. However, For probationary faculty, these reviews they should not be confused with the more important 2nd and 4th year probationary reviews (ACD 506-03). (described below). Both the procedures and standards used in annual performance reviews are different from those used in retention, promotion, and tenure reviews. Annual performance reviews are both formative and summative, whereas tenure and promotion reviews are primarily summative. Typically, units have different levels of performance for annual performance reviews (e.g., unsatisfactory, satisfactory, merit, and so forth), than for retention, tenure and promotion, which require “excellence.” Procedures differ in that the final decision about the performance level in an annual review is made by the chair or a personnel committee (with exceptions for appeals, as noted below); whereas the final decision in a probationary, tenure, or promotion review is made by the Provost based on independent assessments from the unit personnel committee, chair or director, college personnel committee, dean, and (in the case of tenure and promotion), the university personnel committee. because unit procedures may specify different criteria, for tenure and promotion than for the awarding of merit increases. Also, when the record of performance is considered for tenure, the faculty member must meet the established criteria at a level of excellence.
Even though annual performance reviews differ significantly from probationary, tenure, and promotion reviews, there are some common elements (see ACD 506-01). Annual performance reviews should be as similar as possible to the other reviews in terms of the categories of faculty work that are evaluated (e.g., teaching/instruction, research/creative activities, service); the definitions and scope of each of these kinds of faculty work; and the types of evidence that faculty are expected to provide for the review.
Procedures for Annual Performance Evaluations
1. Department chairs are responsible for conducting annual performance evaluations for all tenured and probationary faculty. Chairs, Deans, and the Provost are responsible for insuring the fair and consistent application of policy during annual performance reviews. The primary purpose of the evaluation should be to encourage the faculty member to establish goals for continued academic progress. Depending on the organizational structure of a unit, ABOR policy requires that the unit’s personnel committee or other peer evaluators may must be involved, but it is the chair’s responsibility to see that these evaluations are completed by April 30 for all tenured and probationary faculty. By vote of the eligible voting members of the unit’s academic assembly, the requirement for peer involvement in annual performance evaluations may be waived and full responsibility delegated to the chair.
2. Faculty members are to be informed of the essential content of the evaluations. To that end, procedures should:
3. a. provide that each faculty member will have the opportunity to will be notified that he or she is expected to furnish to his or her the unit head or peer committee, prior to the evaluation, information about the faculty member’s performance and activities during the evaluation period.
1. b. provide that each faculty member will receive, annually, from his or her unit head, a letter commenting on his or her performance, including areas of strength, weakness, needed improvement, and opportunities for growth, and expectations for future distribution of effort and performance
2. c. provide that the letter will include—in the case of faculty who have not yet been tenured and/or promoted to full rank—a statement which indicates that the procedures for the annual evaluation are not the same as the procedures for a tenure or promotion review
3. In years when merit money is available, such evaluations may must guide be the basis on which the allocation of merit adjustments as provided in the unit’s written plan (see ACD 507). are made. However, the evaluations should be conducted whether or not merit money will be available.
4. For the annual performance review to serve the three distinct purposes noted above, it must be consistent with ABOR 6-211 (which guides annual performance review), as well as ABOR and ASU policies governing salary adjustments and post tenure review, (see ABOR 6-201; ACD 507; and ACD 506-11). To this end, the annual performance review:
a. Normally, should cover 36 months, with substantial emphasis on the current year for evaluation of teaching and instruction;
b. Must assess the faculty member’s contributions in terms of teaching/instruction; research and creative activities; service; and contributions to the unit’s affirmative action and diversity goals (ABOR 6-211); contributions to affirmative action and diversity goals may be incorporated into each of the other categories or may be consolidated into the service category;
c. Must provide four distinct measurements that distinguish between “satisfactory” and “unsatisfactory” performance in each of the following areas: teaching/instruction, research and creative activities, service, and an overall assessment;
d. Must differentiate among various levels of “satisfactory” performance to guide decisions about merit-based salary adjustments , (such as “merit,” “exemplary” “high merit, and so on);
e. Must be based upon “written expectations agreed to between the faculty member and unit head...” (ABOR 6-201.H.1.b)
f. Must assess the past performance as well as establish expectations of the future distribution of effort and achievements (ABOR 6-211.B.3)
g. Should take into account the distribution of effort across the various types of faculty responsibilities including negotiated flexible agreements;
h. Must be conducted each year although units may differentiate between “in depth” evaluations that are conducted every three years and “updated” evaluations conducted annually by the chair;
5. The criteria and methods of determining the level of performance are guided by the written plan of the unit but must be consistent with college, ASU, and ABOR policies. With regard to teaching, ABOR policy mandates “a systematic assessment of student opinion [must be one] but not the only component of the evaluation]. Additionally, ABOR requires consideration of “student advising and mentoring whether classified as teaching or service (ABOR 6-211.B.3); (also see ACD 506-01). Criteria for research/ creative activities and service are specified at the unit level.
6. Distribution of effort for the unit as a whole normally will provide equal weights to teaching/instruction and to research/creative activities. The distribution for individual faculty, however, may differ from the unit standard provided that a flexible performance agreement has been negotiated between the faculty member and the unit head, in accord with unit policies governing such agreements. Normally, flexible performance arrangements will be available only to tenured faculty. The implications of such agreements for promotion to full professor must be considered.
7. Faculty who participate as affiliated or “core” faculty in another unit (department, center, institute, or program), may document their contributions to these programs and (if documented) these contributions should be taken into account in the annual performance evaluation.
8. Faculty may request a review of his or her performance evaluation to the next-higher administrative level above the person who made the initial performance recommendation. For example, if a program director made the initial recommendation, the individual could request a review from the department chair, while if the department chair made the initial evaluation, the individual could request a review from the dean. The request for such a review must be made within 30 days after the individual receives his or her written evaluation. The final decision lies with this person, who must complete the review within 30 days after it is requested. There are no procedures for appeals or hearings unless a grievance is alleged, see below. 30 days is measured in 30 work days, summer excluded.
9. Appeals of salary decisions may also be made. Grounds for an appeal of salary decisions shall be failure to implement the unit’s approved evaluation and salary plan consistently. Appeals shall be filed first at the unit level and, if necessary, then at the next administrative level. For colleges with departments, the unit appeal process shall be approved by a vote of the unit’s faculty and academic professionals, and the college appeal process shall be approved by a vote of the college’s faculty and academic professionals. For colleges without departments, the college appeal process shall be approved by a vote of the college’s faculty / academic professionals, and the appeal process at the next administrative level shall be determined by the provost in consultation with the college faculty and academic professionals.
10. An individual may grieve deviation from the board’s or university’s policies and procedures to the appropriate grievance committee. Grievances based on discrimination are to be referred to the Office of Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action (EO/AA).
ACD 506-07 Evaluation for Tenure and Promotion.
1. Tenure is a property right authorized by the Board of Regents and, through board delegation of authority, granted by the president to individuals. An individual’s tenure at Arizona State University is located at either ASU Main or ASU West. Tenure is not transferable between the two campuses, except as provided through university policy and procedure.
2. At each campus, faculty tenure lines and associated budget are assigned to departments, schools, colleges, or divisions.
3. The assignment of faculty tenure lines and associated budget to a campus department, school, college, or division is the responsibility of the senior vice president and provost.
4. Each department, school, college, or division will establish committees for promotion and tenure review of faculty in accordance with its by-laws.
5. Academic personnel policies and procedures at the university are designed to ensure a fair and impartial process of review and evaluation for each candidate
6. Policies and procedures for evaluation are clear, unambiguous, comprehensive, and applied consistently and uniformly.
7. Written criteria for personnel decisions will be established by each college and department in terms of its special needs and expectations. These criteria shall be approved by the Office of the Senior Vice President and Provost, and shall be consistent with university affirmative action and equal opportunity policies.
(a) A person is promoted, granted tenure, or retained on the basis of excellent performance and the promise of continued excellence.
These criteria must include
quality of teaching and instruction effectiveness (Summary data of student evaluations must be included as one type of evidence of teaching effectiveness. Each academic unit shall have one instrument for student evaluation of teaching that shall be used by all faculty in that unit.;
quality of research and publication or other creative endeavors;
quality of service to the profession, to the university, and to the community (local, state, and national or international) and
the interests of higher education in Arizona
(b). Promotion to associate professor and awarding of tenure require an overall record of excellence and the promise of continued excellence. The candidate must have achieved excellence (taking into account the rank) in both teaching / instructional activities as well as in research / creative activities. Service must at least be “satisfactory” or “effective.” Units in which public service is a central aspect of their mission also may require excellence in public service.
(c). Promotion to full professor should be based on an overall record of excellence in performance of professional responsibilities (taking into account the distribution of effort as part of any negotiated flexible performance agreements), and the promise of continued effectiveness in professional development. For promotion to full professor, exceptional quality of service should be assessed primarily in relation to service to the public.
(d). Normally, an overall record of excellence should require national or international recognition for scholarly achievement in one or more areas of faculty endeavor.
8. Written policy documents in each unit should define the categories of faculty work that are included in the evaluation and should specify the types of evidence faculty are expected to submit. Unit guidelines should be consistent with ABOR and ACD 506-01.
9. For faculty members serving in administrative positions, their performance in the administrative post should usually be evaluated as a component of service. Additional evidence on teaching and research/creative activities should be provided for consideration in decisions regarding promotion and tenure.
10. The unit’s written criteria concerning evaluation for tenure and promotion may address evaluation issues pertaining to faculty who participate as affiliated faculty or as “core faculty” in another program, such as a department, center, institute, or interdisciplinary program. The policy should explain how the work in these units is taken into account in the tenure and promotion process. Normally, faculty should:
have the option of including their “outside” contributions within their official “distribution of effort” in their home unit;
be allowed to include on their list of external reviewers persons who are qualified to provide meaningful input on the particular work done outside of their home unit;
be allowed to request that the chair consult with the center or institute director in selecting external reviewers, although the final decision on such reviewers is determined by the unit’s policy.
11. Interdisciplinary scholarly work by faculty should be suitably evaluated and weighted in reaching overall conclusions about faculty performance.
12. All college and university committees meeting to consider matters of promotion and tenure should be instructed to communicate with the chair or director of the academic unit if there are major faults or omissions in the material or if significant questions or possible misunderstandings arise. The department chair may send additional letters to the committee as the case progresses if there is a need, either to clarify some matter that may cause confusion or to give additional information. However, all parties should remember that ASU policy provides for independent reviews by faculty committees and administrators.
8. 13. The denial of promotion, tenure, or retention, however, need not be construed as due to failure or poor performance on the candidate’s part. Considerations such as the need for a different area of specialization or for a new emphasis; the lack of a continuing position; the need to shift a position or resources to another department; or the opportunity for a more vigorous program in teaching, research, or service may dictate that the individual not be retained or granted tenure.
9. 14. Suggestions for improvement in areas subject to evaluation should be given to candidates no later than the probationary reviews that are held every two years.
10. 15. External evaluation of the faculty member’s record research, publication, and/or creative activities is solicited for use in personnel decisions. This shall be done in a timely manner, and should specify which areas of performance (e.g., teaching/instruction, research and creative activities, service) are included. Materials appropriate to the review should be provided to the reviewer. External reviewers should submit a resume along with their review.
(a) The chair or dean proposes reviewers, and the candidate proposes reviewers. Reviewers ultimately solicited will represent both lists equally. All reviews received will be included in the candidate’s file.
(b) Evaluations are solicited by the unit chair from persons of high reputation in the candidate’s field.
(c) The reviewer is asked for a statement regarding his or her acquaintance with the applicant.
(d) Guidelines with specific questions are furnished to each reviewer so that the evaluations will have a consistent format and can be utilized objectively.
(e) In order to give the reviewer an opportunity to develop a quality response, the reviewer shall be given at least 30 days to respond.
(f) External letters are part of the evaluation of research, publication, and creative activity. These letters are primarily a check on the quality of internal department review procedures. A Tenure and promotion decisions will include consideration of external letters.
(g) Letters written by ASU students, staff members, or colleagues cannot substitute for external evaluations of research accomplishments of faculty members. However, letters may be requested on campus for academic professionals.
14. 16. External letters of evaluation are solicited on a confidential basis. Neither the names of the reviewers nor the contents of the letters are to be shared with the applicant for tenure or promotion. Only officially appointed or elected review committees or other faculty groups specified by unit bylaws and administrators in the review hierarchy examine the letters. The greatest care is to be taken to ensure confidentiality of external letters of evaluation. Letters should be kept in a central location and viewed only there. Solicitation letters to external reviewers should include a statement that describes who will have access to the letter of review and the extent to which confidentiality can be assured.
12. 17. The University Promotion and Tenure Committee will not accept letters, either positive or negative, that have not come through a unit’s established review procedures.
13. 18. ASU policy dictates that separate consideration and recommendations regarding the performance of each candidate are given by faculty reviewers and by administrators.
ACD 506-08. Annual and Probationary Evaluations for Academic Professionals. No Changes.
ACD 506-09. Evaluation for Continuing Status and/or Promotion. No Changes. This governs policies for academic professionals.
ACD 506-10. Notification of Consideration for Tenure/Continuing Status, Promotion, or Retention. No Changes
ACD 506-11. Post Tenure Review Process. No Changes
ACD 506-12. Promotion from Lecturer to Senior Lecturer No Changes
ACD 506-13. Joint Appointments
Purpose: To describe the appointment and evaluation processes involving faculty who have formal appointments in more than one academic unit (academic department, center, program, institute).
Policy
All joint appointments shall be based on a formal Memorandum of Understanding that is agreed to by the faculty member, the units (academic departments or programs, centers, and institutes), and college(s). The agreement must contain the following elements:
(a) The identification of the unit that serves as the tenure home and has the lead role in all personnel evaluations, including annual performance review, and tenure and promotion reviews. In the case of joint appointments involving centers or institutes, the tenure or tenure-eligible home is the academic department or program.
(b) The identification of all other units involved in the appointment and the expectation for the individual in each unit, including the FTE assignment to each unit and the role of each in all personnel actions.
(c) The process for review of the terms of the agreement including the time period and procedures for revision of it. For probationary faculty, the agreement should be reviewed at the 2nd and 4th year probationary reviews. For persons who have tenure, the agreement should be reviewed after two years, and thereafter according to the preferences of the participating units.
(d) Changes in the agreement must be approved by the individual and each of the involved units.
All involved units must participate in annual performance review, probationary reviews, tenure and promotion reviews. Each unit should recommend raises based on its proportional share of the salary that is paid. The total raise for the person should equal the sum of the raises recommended by the home unit and other concerned units, subject to university approval.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- evaluation words and phrases
- teacher evaluation comments and phrases
- evaluation questions and answers
- performance evaluation questions and answers
- job evaluation questions and answers
- office supply processes and procedures
- positive evaluation comments and phrases
- decision making processes and models
- organizational processes and systems
- work processes and systems
- work processes and procedures
- people processes and technology model