NHS Faculty Tenure & Promotion Workshop May 1, 2013

Overview I.Introduction (Part I) EvaluationEvaluation TenureTenure PromotionPromotion Evaluation TimelineEvaluation Timeline II.Comprehensive Review Policy and Procedures III.Dossier Preparation (Part II) IV.Questions

NHS Evaluation and Performance Policies and Procedures Recommended Implementation: Process for the New Faculty Evaluation Document Effective Academic Year Annual Review All College faculty will follow the new faculty evaluation document.

NHS Evaluation and Performance Policies and Procedures Recommended Implementation: Process for the New Faculty Evaluation Document Effective Academic Year Tenure and/or Promotion Any tenure track faculty member who has not been through pre-tenure review, during or prior to the 2012 – 2013 academic year, will fall under the new faculty evaluation document. Any assistant professor who has completed pre-tenure review, but has not applied for tenure and promotion, during or prior to the academic year, will have the option to complete the tenure and promotion review process under either a) the new faculty evaluation document or, b) the old faculty evaluation document. Any associate professor applying for promotion to full professor during the or academic years will have the option to complete the tenure and promotion review process under either a) the new faculty evaluation document or, b) the old faculty evaluation document. All associate professors seeking promotion during or after the academic year, will be reviewed under the new faculty evaluation document.

NHS Evaluation and Performance Policies and Procedures Recommended Implementation: Process for the New Faculty Evaluation Document Effective Academic Year Comprehensive Review Any tenured faculty member required to complete a comprehensive review during the or academic years will have the option to complete the tenure and promotion review process under either a) the new faculty evaluation document or, b) the old faculty evaluation document. All faculty members completing a comprehensive review during or after the academic year, will be reviewed under the new faculty evaluation document.

Performance Areas Faculty members at the University of Northern Colorado (UNC) have workload assignments and are evaluated in following areas:Faculty members at the University of Northern Colorado (UNC) have workload assignments and are evaluated in following areas: 1.Instruction/teaching 2.Scholarship/professional activity 3.Service Performance areas are defined in section (2) of the Board Policy ManualPerformance areas are defined in section (2) of the Board Policy Manual

Performance Standards Performance Standards RubricPerformance Standards Rubric Appendices A and BAppendices A and B

Instructions for Using Performance Standards Rubric The performance standards rubric is designed to aid all reviewers in their systematic evaluation of a faculty members productivity during the respective evaluation period (annual, pre-tenure, promotion and/or tenure, and comprehensive). Each reviewer should follow the following steps in reviewing the provided materials: Carefully and thoroughly review and examine the faculty members materials. Review the materials for each evaluation category (Instruction, Professional Activity, and Service) using the meets expectations column first. For each of the Meets Expectations criteria check the corresponding box providing the candidate materials satisfactorily meets each specific criterion. For criteria listed under If Appropriate, unit guidelines and/or unit leader shall determineappropriateness depending on faculty workload. For example, clinical faculty may have responsibilities involving field experience that requires evaluation in category (g) in Instruction; associate professors may be required to participate in service to the profession that requires evaluation in category (b) in Service.

Instructions for Using Performance Standards Rubric After completing the meets expectations column for each evaluation category: If the candidate meets all the criteria required and/or deemed appropriate at the level of Meets Expectations, evaluate whether the candidates materials provide evidence of meeting criteria in either the Exceeds Expectations or Excellent categories. Check all criteria that are met. If the candidate did not meet all the criteria required and/or deemed appropriate at the level of Meets Expectations, evaluate whether the candidates materials are congruent with the criteria in the Needs Improvement or Unsatisfactory columns. Check all criteria met. Based on the units evaluation policies and procedures, provide appropriate feedback to the units evaluation committee. If comments are provided, these should be based on first person knowledge, direct observation, and/ or candidate provided evidence. All comments should be constructive, tied to specific evaluation criteria, and phrased in a professional, ethical tone.

Forms of Evaluation in NHS Annual review Based on calendar yearBased on calendar year Normally occurs at unit level in January or FebruaryNormally occurs at unit level in January or February Informs reappointment decisionsInforms reappointment decisions Comprehensive review Tenure and/or promotionTenure and/or promotion Pre- and Post-tenurePre- and Post-tenure

Tenure The following statement from UNC Board Policy regarding tenure is quite clear about its purposes and implementation [ (1)]: The purpose of tenure is to create an environment in which the concept of academic freedom is protected. The decision to grant or not grant tenure is influenced by the desirability of maintaining a continuing collegial and professional relationship between the candidate and his or her peer professionalsThe purpose of tenure is to create an environment in which the concept of academic freedom is protected. The decision to grant or not grant tenure is influenced by the desirability of maintaining a continuing collegial and professional relationship between the candidate and his or her peer professionals

Promotion The following statement from UNC Board Policy regarding promotion is also quite clear about its purposes and implementation ( ): Promotion at the University provides a mechanism for the recognition of personal contributions of faculty members to the mission of the institution and its reputation as well as a professional contribution of the advancement of the state of the art and the society at large.Promotion at the University provides a mechanism for the recognition of personal contributions of faculty members to the mission of the institution and its reputation as well as a professional contribution of the advancement of the state of the art and the society at large.

Comprehensive Review Process 1.Unit-level review 2.Dean review 3.Provost review 4.President review 5.Board of Trustees review

Unit-Level Review Faculty ReviewFaculty Review Unit Leader ReviewUnit Leader Review Both evaluate candidate using specific standards re: instruction, professional activity, and service valued by the disciplineBoth evaluate candidate using specific standards re: instruction, professional activity, and service valued by the discipline Eval. Comm. and Unit Leader evaluation memo to candidate and DeanEval. Comm. and Unit Leader evaluation memo to candidate and Dean

Dean Review Dean reviews all application materials, including the candidates curriculum vitae, dossier and narrative statements, the department/school/program area faculty vote and recommendation, and unit leader evaluation and recommendationDean reviews all application materials, including the candidates curriculum vitae, dossier and narrative statements, the department/school/program area faculty vote and recommendation, and unit leader evaluation and recommendation Deans evaluation memoDeans evaluation memo

Evaluation Conference Committee Convened by the DeanConvened by the Dean Members are the Dean, Unit Leader, and Program Area Faculty or their designeeMembers are the Dean, Unit Leader, and Program Area Faculty or their designee Purpose is for conflict resolution when there is a recommendation disagreement among the voting faculty, the Unit Leader, and the DeanPurpose is for conflict resolution when there is a recommendation disagreement among the voting faculty, the Unit Leader, and the Dean Reexamines evaluation materialsReexamines evaluation materials If consensus cannot be reached then individual recommendations are forwarded to the CAO (Provost)If consensus cannot be reached then individual recommendations are forwarded to the CAO (Provost)

Evaluatee Feedback Evaluatee will receive evaluation results at each review stepEvaluatee will receive evaluation results at each review step Evaluatee will be given the opportunity to provide commentary and additional supporting documentation at each review stepEvaluatee will be given the opportunity to provide commentary and additional supporting documentation at each review step Evaluatee may appeal the results of the review process using established faculty grievance proceduresEvaluatee may appeal the results of the review process using established faculty grievance procedures BPM BPM

Pre-Tenure Review Mid-point of probationary periodMid-point of probationary period Intended as a check on an individuals progress toward tenureIntended as a check on an individuals progress toward tenure Unit and College level onlyUnit and College level only Years of tenure credit awarded to faculty member Pre-tenure review will occur during the faculty members 0Third full academic year 1Second full academic year 2 3Not applicable

Instruction, Scholarship, and Service Workload Each is assigned a weight for evaluation purposes such that sum = 1.0Each is assigned a weight for evaluation purposes such that sum = 1.0 Basis for the workload of individuals in the college - fifteen (15) credit hour per semester equated loadBasis for the workload of individuals in the college - fifteen (15) credit hour per semester equated load Many faculty will have a work assignment of:Many faculty will have a work assignment of: instruction scholarship service Weighting may vary as college or unit needs dictateWeighting may vary as college or unit needs dictate

Overall Evaluation Performance evaluation yields an overall evaluation based on the weighted areas of the individuals workloadPerformance evaluation yields an overall evaluation based on the weighted areas of the individuals workload The weights and the evaluation rating assigned for each area are multiplied and the products are summed to yield an overall evaluation measure between one (I) and five (V)The weights and the evaluation rating assigned for each area are multiplied and the products are summed to yield an overall evaluation measure between one (I) and five (V)

University Evaluation Scale The 3 areas and the overall evaluation is assigned according to the university scale, as follows: LEVELRATING OVERALL EVALUATION V 4.6 – 5.0 Excellent IV IV 3.6 – 4.5 Exceeds Expectations III III 2.6 – 3.5 Meets Expectations II II 1.6 – 2.5 Needs Improvement I 1.0 – 1.5 Unsatisfactory

External Peer Evaluation Individuals applying for tenure or promotion at any rank are required to include a minimum of two (2) peer evaluations of scholarship from faculty within the discipline from other institutionsIndividuals applying for tenure or promotion at any rank are required to include a minimum of two (2) peer evaluations of scholarship from faculty within the discipline from other institutions Candidates should provide to their unit leader the names and contact information of at least three prospective outside peer evaluators. Reviewers should be at or above the academic rank being sought. Reviewers should be faculty members within the candidates discipline. Reviewers should be from peer institutions or above. Reviewers must not have collaborated in scholarship activities with the candidate during the review period. Reviewers must not be individuals who served on the candidates dissertation/thesis committee. Conflicts of interest between reviewer and candidate must be avoided. Unit Leader serves as point of contact for external reviewersUnit Leader serves as point of contact for external reviewers Need at least 1 month to secure lettersNeed at least 1 month to secure letters

External peer evaluations are not required for faculty preparing for pre-tenure and post-tenure comprehensive reviewExternal peer evaluations are not required for faculty preparing for pre-tenure and post-tenure comprehensive review Candidates shall have the right to view external review letters and this fact shall be conveyed to all prospective peer reviewersCandidates shall have the right to view external review letters and this fact shall be conveyed to all prospective peer reviewers The standard letter of instruction for peer reviewers is provided in Appendix E of the NHS Faculty Evaluation and Performance Policies and Procedures document. standard letter of instruction for peer reviewers is provided in Appendix E of the NHS Faculty Evaluation and Performance Policies and Procedures document. External Peer Evaluation

Basis for Tenure Recommendation Pre-Tenure ReviewPre-Tenure Review - Level IV or V rating for instruction or professional activity - Level III, IV, or V rating for the other two performance areas TenureTenure - Level IV or V rating for instruction or professional activity - Level III, IV, or V rating for the other two performance areas - Assistant professors may only be granted tenure if promoted to associate professor at the same time associate professor at the same time Post-Tenure ReviewPost-Tenure Review An individual is evaluated on his/her assigned workload over a five-year period. To receive an overall satisfactory performance evaluation, the faculty member must be rated as Level III or above overall, which must include a Level III rating in instruction

Basis for Promotion Recommendation Promotion to Associate ProfessorPromotion to Associate Professor - Earned doctorate in the discipline or other terminal degree specified by the unit or program area is required specified by the unit or program area is required - Level IV or V rating for instruction or professional activity - Level III, IV, or V rating for the other two performance areas Promotion to ProfessorPromotion to Professor - Level IV or V rating for instruction and professional activity - Level III, IV, or V rating for service

Performance Standards Instruction - the effective instructor is guided by theteacher/scholar modelInstruction - the effective instructor is guided by theteacher/scholar model Scholarship - Faculty are expected to engage in advancing one or more aspects of their discipline through scholarly pursuitsScholarship - Faculty are expected to engage in advancing one or more aspects of their discipline through scholarly pursuits Service - Faculty are expected to contribute substantively to the governance and professionally related service activities of the unit or program area and collegeService - Faculty are expected to contribute substantively to the governance and professionally related service activities of the unit or program area and college Specific guidelines and criteria found in NHS Faculty Evaluation and Performance Policies and Procedures document (pp. 6-9) Specific guidelines and criteria found in NHS Faculty Evaluation and Performance Policies and Procedures document (pp. 6-9) College performance standards form College performance standards form

Typical Faculty Evaluation Timeline (Tenure Clock) (TT ASTP with no years credit) AY AY AY AY AY AY (Tenure effective) AY (Tenure effective) 3rd year reappoint (Nov.) Comprehen -sive review (Pre-tenure) Eligible for comprehen- sive review (T/P) Mandatory comprehen- sive review (T/P) Annual evaluation 2nd year reappoint (Feb.) Annual evaluation 4th year reappoint (~ May) Annual evaluation 5th year reappoint (May) Annual evaluation 6th year reappoint (May) Annual evaluation 7th year reappoint* (May) Annual evaluation 7th year reappoint** (May) Terminal year if not awarded tenure 1 st Year 2 nd Year 3 rd Year 4 th Year 5 th Year 6 th Year 7 th Year Probationary period = 7 years FallFall SpringSpring

Sources NHS Faculty Evaluation and Performance Policies and Procedures documentNHS Faculty Evaluation and Performance Policies and Procedures document tml tml Board Policy ManualBoard Policy Manual University RegulationsUniversity Regulations s.pdf s.pdf

Questions and Discussion

Guidelines for Dossier* Preparation Dossier – portfolio of information relative to performance and accomplishments during the comprehensive evaluation period, which shall include: Updated curriculum vitae in university formatUpdated curriculum vitae in university format Appropriate documentation (evidence)Appropriate documentation (evidence) Representative sample of student evaluationsRepresentative sample of student evaluations Other materials determined by the Unit and Program AreaOther materials determined by the Unit and Program Area BPM it shall be the responsibility of the candidate to document satisfactory fulfillment of the appropriate areas of consideration *Appendix C of the NHS Faculty Evaluation document provides specific guidance on the organization and format of the dossier

Elements in Dossier All materials limited to 2-inch loose leaf binderAll materials limited to 2-inch loose leaf binder Pocket Materials Letter of transmittalLetter of transmittal University request formsUniversity request forms Copies of Annual Evaluations – forms, faculty reports, unit leader reports, dean reportsCopies of Annual Evaluations – forms, faculty reports, unit leader reports, dean reports Faculty Comprehensive Evaluation – includes current year annual reviewFaculty Comprehensive Evaluation – includes current year annual review Unit Leader Comprehensive Evaluation – includes current year annual reviewUnit Leader Comprehensive Evaluation – includes current year annual review Dean Comprehensive EvaluationDean Comprehensive Evaluation

Comprehensive Performance Report – Tab 1 Brief narrative comprehensive summary report of accomplishments over the period that is used to educate and inform your colleaguesBrief narrative comprehensive summary report of accomplishments over the period that is used to educate and inform your colleagues Current CV in UNC formatCurrent CV in UNC format External peer review letters (required for P&T)External peer review letters (required for P&T)

Instruction Performance Report– Tab 2 Guidelines for Instruction Materials Brief narrative summary report of accomplishments over the period that is used to educate and inform your colleaguesBrief narrative summary report of accomplishments over the period that is used to educate and inform your colleagues Demonstrate effectiveness as an instructorDemonstrate effectiveness as an instructor Demonstrate ability to develop students ethical and critical thinking and analytical and expressive abilitiesDemonstrate ability to develop students ethical and critical thinking and analytical and expressive abilities Note: In NHS, advising related to career development and students academic progress will be considered service, while mentoring associated with theses and dissertations, directed studies courses, and the like, will be classified as instructionNote: In NHS, advising related to career development and students academic progress will be considered service, while mentoring associated with theses and dissertations, directed studies courses, and the like, will be classified as instruction List of suggested materials in NHS Faculty Evaluation document (Appx C)

Professional Activity Performance Report – Tab 3 Guidelines for Professional Activity Materials Brief narrative summary report of accomplishments over the period that is used to educate and inform your colleaguesBrief narrative summary report of accomplishments over the period that is used to educate and inform your colleagues Provide evidence and/or examplesProvide evidence and/or examples Highlight the significance or noteworthiness of your research, scholarship, and grantsHighlight the significance or noteworthiness of your research, scholarship, and grants List of suggested materials in NHS Faculty Evaluation document (Appx C)

Service Performance Report – Tab 4 Guidelines for Service Materials Brief narrative summary report of accomplishments over the period that is used to educate and inform your colleaguesBrief narrative summary report of accomplishments over the period that is used to educate and inform your colleagues Provide evidence and/or examplesProvide evidence and/or examples Highlight the significance or noteworthiness of your service activitiesHighlight the significance or noteworthiness of your service activities Note: In NHS, advising related to career development and students academic progress will be considered service, while mentoring associated with theses and dissertations, directed studies courses, and the like, will be classified as instructionNote: In NHS, advising related to career development and students academic progress will be considered service, while mentoring associated with theses and dissertations, directed studies courses, and the like, will be classified as instruction List of suggested materials in NHS Faculty Evaluation document (Appx C)

Keys to Success Well prepared, easy-to-read dossier – your application will be seen by many people during the evaluation process Carefully follow dossier guidelines - include ALLCarefully follow dossier guidelines - include ALL necessary forms and materials necessary forms and materials Make materials easy to find and read – find examplesMake materials easy to find and read – find examples and have your colleagues provide feedback prior to and have your colleagues provide feedback prior to submission submission Highlight significance/impact of your effortsHighlight significance/impact of your efforts Make efforts obvious to those unfamiliar with yourMake efforts obvious to those unfamiliar with your area area

Common Errors Poorly prepared, hard-to-read dossier – lacks informative narratives highlighting accomplishments Incomplete dossier – missing necessary forms andIncomplete dossier – missing necessary forms and materials materials Forms not correctly filled out or containing mathForms not correctly filled out or containing math mistakes mistakes Significance/impact of your efforts not clear – noSignificance/impact of your efforts not clear – no differentiation of what is peer reviewed vs. what is differentiation of what is peer reviewed vs. what is not not

Faculty Evaluation Deadlines* Comprehensive Reviews - other than pre-tenure reviews (including applications for promotion and/or tenure, and graduate faculty status; and post-tenure review): DUE: NHS Deans office – February 1*DUE: NHS Deans office – February 1* Academic Affairs – First half of MarchAcademic Affairs – First half of March Pre-Tenure Reviews DUE: NHS Deans office – March 1DUE: NHS Deans office – March 1 * Deadline under review. May be moved to Fall 13.

Sources NHS Faculty Evaluation and Performance Policies and Procedures documentNHS Faculty Evaluation and Performance Policies and Procedures document tml tml Board Policy ManualBoard Policy Manual University RegulationsUniversity Regulations s.pdf s.pdf

Questions and Discussion