Training for Reviewers Fall 2018 Faculty Evaluation Training for Reviewers Fall 2018

Overview of process Evaluation Criteria File Contents Review Procedures

Changes for AY18-19 UAFT and UNAC merger: Faculty are now UNAC or non-represented Tenure may only be awarded to Associate or Professor Campus Director reviews now occur after the college peer review committee (see flowchart) Former UAFT faculty will have external reviewers for the first time

Changes for AY18-19 Revised Evaluation Process in UNAC CBA Dates of reviews have changed slightly (UNAC CBA 9.2.6, see flowchart) Faculty filing a comprehensive file are no longer required to also submit an AAR (UNAC CBA 9.2.1) Non-tenure track faculty with five or more years of continuous service at rank may apply for promotion (Assistant and Associate only) (UNAC CBA 9.2.7)

Levels of Authority: CBA procedures BoR Policy & Regulations UAA Policies & Procedures (FEPPS) Unit Guidelines (FEGs) criteria

Sequence of Reviews & Deadlines Procedures are the same whether faculty are using old or new guidelines See flowcharts (handouts) Also posted on Faculty Services web page: http://www.uaa.alaska.edu/facultyservices/ tenure/index.cfm

Reviews Reviewers Annual Review Dean, Campus Director, or designee 4th Year Comprehensive College Peer Review Dean* UFEC Provost (beyond only by faculty request) Tenure & Promotion to Associate Provost Chancellor Promotion to Professor Comprehensive Post-tenure Review Dean, Campus Director or designee Beyond if unsatisfactory * For Community Campus faculty, Campus Director provides review prior to the Dean.

Faculty Evaluation Policies/Guidelines Choice between Old and New Applicable guidelines should be noted and signed on coversheet Use old unit guidelines with old UAA guidelines (Chapter III Faculty Handbook) Use new unit guidelines (2014 or 2018) with new UAA guidelines (new FEPPs) UNAC Memo clarifying adoption dates/grandfathering Faculty Services Evaluation Page: http://www.uaa.alaska.edu/facultyservices/tenure/index.cfm

Grandfathering of college/unit FEGs Per the UAA FEPPs (pages 29-30), faculty may select: The unit FEGs in effect during their first year as tenure-track or in current rank, or the first year following last post-tenure review OR The current college/unit FEGs

Evaluation Criteria

Focus of Evaluation Fulfillment of Workload Agreements Extent of professional growth and development Prospects for continued professional growth and development Changes or improvements required for tenure, promotion, and continued professional growth. Processes available to assist in improving performance.

Key Terms Reviews are unambiguous and have the greatest impact if judgments are expressed in the language of the Faculty Evaluation Policies & Procedures. Faculty preparing for review should know the descriptors for performance at their current rank, and the next rank, if applicable. Faculty are advised to use the vocabulary of the FEPPs in their self-evaluations. Reviewers should use key terms in their Findings or Conclusions.

Key Terms for Faculty Evaluation Old FEPPs Assistant Professor level: potential for success Tenure & Promotion to Associate: success Promotion to Professor: exemplary in each area of the workload

Current FEPPs “success”  “effectiveness” Emphasis on “sustained” or “continuing” performance Evidence of quality & significance impact leadership recognition from peers or community external to UAA marked strength in at least one area of workload

Key Terms for Faculty Evaluation Current FEPPs Assistant Professor: effectiveness in each area of workload; promise of continuing achievement Tenure & Promotion to Associate: sustained record of effectiveness; emerging recognition Promotion to Professor: sustained excellence; leadership; external recognition Marked strength in one area of the workload.

Benchmarks & Criteria – new FEGs (handouts)

Benchmarks & Criteria – new FEGs (handouts)

Review Files

Annual Reviews Current CV Annual Activity Report form Summary of each area of workload Teaching Service Research/Creative Activity (if applicable) Self-evaluation Other materials at the discretion of the faculty member (more information, more feedback)

Annual Reviews Evaluation of performance is based upon assignments and allocation of effort specified in the approved Workload Agreement. There is no template or standard for distribution of effort. Workload assignments vary considerably. Approved Workload = signed by the dean (or designee). Dean’s response to Annual Activity Reports becomes part of the comprehensive file.

Comprehensive (multi-year) Reviews Fourth-year Comprehensive Review (progression toward tenure) Tenure and/or Promotion Comprehensive Post-tenure Review

Composition of Comprehensive Files CBA provides a list of required documents, with provision for materials specified by the MAU or unit guidelines or added at the discretion of faculty. UAA FEPPs provide for some additions to the CBA list.

UAA Comprehensive Review Files Current CV All workload agreements for the period under review. Annual Activity Reports for all years in the period under review* and responses from the Dean (or designee) as applicable. A cumulative Activity Report summarizing each area of the workload across the period of review. *Files may not contain separate 17-18 AAR since faculty are not required to submit them. Older AARs did not require a response from the Dean.

Comprehensive File (cont.) Summary teaching evaluations for period under review. Representative syllabus for each course taught. Findings and recommendations from the most recent comprehensive review (if applicable).

Comprehensive Files (cont.) Self-evaluation if feedback from dean, director, or designee has noted areas for improvement, a summary of progress in addressing those areas must be included. Verification of degrees, certificates, or licenses (may be on file in Faculty Services)

Comprehensive File (cont.) For tenure and/or promotion only: external review letters (2 reviewers proposed by faculty and up to 2 reviewers proposed by the dean). Initial letter of appointment (if needed to document prior years of service) Other material at faculty member’s discretion.

External Reviewers External = outside of the UA system Dean’s office requests and receives letters from faculty member’s selected reviewers and Dean’s selected reviewers. Letters received are provided to faculty member on September 8 for inclusion in the file. Dean’s office documents for the file how many requested and how many received. Letters are labeled to indicate whether reviewer was selected by faculty or dean.

Post-Tenure Review Assesses whether performance continues to meet expectations. Performance is satisfactory if it meets standards for the faculty member’s current rank. Evaluation of progress toward promotion, if applicable, is a separate judgment with separate feedback. No external reviews or letters of support

Adding Documents In general, the faculty member’s file is complete at the time of submission, except for reviews and faculty responses as provided by the CBA. At the time of a response, a faculty member may submit additional evidence that was not available at the time of file submission if it relates to a scholarly accomplishment previously documented in the file. Responses are placed at the front of the file. Levels of review already completed do not consider new material. File continues forward.

Peer Committee Procedures Conflicts of interest Disclosures of conflicts & committee decisions on recusal recorded in findings and recommendations Faculty under review may request recusal Provost resolves differences Open or closed meetings decision of the committee faculty member notified of meeting (information only) Peer reviews are signed by the chair on behalf of the committee. Reviewers may not move, remove, retain, or copy any portion of the file.