1. Training for Reviewers Fall 2018
Faculty Evaluation
Training for Reviewers
Fall 2018

2. Overview of process
Evaluation Criteria
File Contents
Review Procedures

3. 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

4. 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)

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

6. 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:
tenure/index.cfm

7. 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.

8. 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:

9. 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

11. Evaluation Criteria

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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.

17. Benchmarks & Criteria – new FEGs (handouts)

18. Benchmarks & Criteria – new FEGs (handouts)

19. Review Files

20. 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)

21. 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.

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

23. 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.

24. 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 AAR since faculty are not required to submit them. Older AARs did not require a response from the Dean.

25. 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).

26. 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)

27. 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.

28. 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.

29. 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

30. 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.

31. 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.