NHS Faculty Tenure & Promotion Workshop May 1, 2013.

NHS Faculty NHS Faculty Tenure & Tenure &

Promotion Promotion WorkshopWorkshop

May 1, 2013May 1, 2013

OverviewOverview

I.I. Introduction (Part I)Introduction (Part I)• EvaluationEvaluation• TenureTenure• PromotionPromotion• Evaluation TimelineEvaluation Timeline

II.II. Comprehensive Review Policy and Comprehensive Review Policy and ProceduresProcedures

III.III. Dossier Preparation (Part II)Dossier Preparation (Part II)

IV.IV. QuestionsQuestions

NHS Evaluation and Performance NHS Evaluation and Performance Policies and ProceduresPolicies and Procedures

Recommended Implementation: Process for the New Faculty Evaluation Document

Effective 2013-2014 Academic Year

Annual Review

All College faculty will follow the new faculty evaluation document.

http://www.unco.edu/nhs/resources/faculty_evalution.html



Effective 2013-2014 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 2012-2013 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 2013-2014 or 2014-2015 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 2015-2016 academic year, will be reviewed under the new faculty evaluation document.




Effective 2013-2014 Academic YearComprehensive Review

Any tenured faculty member required to complete a comprehensive review during the 2013-2014 or 2014-2015 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 2015-2016 academic year, will be reviewed under the new faculty evaluation document.


Performance AreasPerformance Areas

• Faculty members at the University of Faculty members at the University of Northern Colorado (UNC) have workload Northern Colorado (UNC) have workload assignments and are evaluated in following assignments and are evaluated in following areas:areas:

1.1. Instruction/teachingInstruction/teaching2.2. Scholarship/professional activityScholarship/professional activity3.3. ServiceService

• Performance areas are defined in section 2-Performance areas are defined in section 2-3-401(2) of the Board Policy Manual 3-401(2) of the Board Policy Manual

Performance StandardsPerformance 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 member’s 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 member’s 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 determine “appropriateness” 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 candidate’s 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 candidate’s materials are congruent with the criteria in the Needs Improvement or Unsatisfactory columns. Check all criteria met.

Based on the unit’s evaluation policies and procedures, provide appropriate feedback to the unit’s 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 NHSForms of Evaluation in NHS

Annual reviewAnnual review• Based on calendar yearBased on calendar year• Normally occurs at unit level in January Normally occurs at unit level in January

or Februaryor February• Informs reappointment decisionsInforms reappointment decisions

Comprehensive reviewComprehensive review• Tenure and/or promotionTenure and/or promotion• Pre- and Post-tenurePre- and Post-tenure

TenureTenure

The following statement from The following statement from UNC Board PolicyUNC Board Policy regarding tenure is quite clear about its purposes and regarding tenure is quite clear about its purposes and implementation [2-3-902(1)]:implementation [2-3-902(1)]:

““The purpose of tenure is to create an environment in The purpose of tenure is to create an environment in which the concept of which the concept of academic freedomacademic freedom is protected. The is protected. The decision to grant or not grant tenure is influenced by the decision to grant or not grant tenure is influenced by the desirability of maintaining a continuing collegial and desirability of maintaining a continuing collegial and professional relationship between the candidate and his professional relationship between the candidate and his or her peer professionalsor her peer professionals””

PromotionPromotion

The following statement from The following statement from UNC Board PolicyUNC Board Policy regarding promotion is also quite clear about its regarding promotion is also quite clear about its purposes and implementation (2-3-901):purposes and implementation (2-3-901):

““PromotionPromotion at the University provides a mechanism for at the University provides a mechanism for the recognition of personal contributions of faculty the recognition of personal contributions of faculty members to the mission of the institution and its members to the mission of the institution and its reputation as well as a professional contribution of the reputation as well as a professional contribution of the advancement of the state of the art and the society at advancement of the state of the art and the society at large.large.””

Comprehensive Review Comprehensive Review ProcessProcess

1.1. Unit-level review Unit-level review

2.2. Dean review Dean review

3.3. Provost reviewProvost review

4.4. President reviewPresident review

5.5. Board of Trustees reviewBoard of Trustees review

Unit-Level ReviewUnit-Level Review

• Faculty ReviewFaculty Review

• Unit Leader ReviewUnit Leader Review

• Both evaluate candidate using specific standards re: Both evaluate candidate using specific standards re: instruction, professional activity, and service valued instruction, professional activity, and service valued by the disciplineby the discipline

• Eval. Comm. and Unit Leader evaluation memo to Eval. Comm. and Unit Leader evaluation memo to candidate and Deancandidate and Dean

Dean ReviewDean Review

• Dean reviews all application materials, including the Dean reviews all application materials, including the candidatecandidate’’s s curriculum vitaecurriculum vitae, dossier and narrative , dossier and narrative statements, the department/school/program area statements, the department/school/program area faculty vote and recommendation, and unit leader faculty vote and recommendation, and unit leader evaluation and recommendationevaluation and recommendation

• DeanDean’’s evaluation memos evaluation memo

Evaluation Conference Evaluation Conference CommitteeCommittee

• Convened by the DeanConvened by the Dean

• Members are the Dean, Unit Leader, and Program Area Members are the Dean, Unit Leader, and Program Area Faculty or their designeeFaculty or their designee

• Purpose is for conflict resolution when there is a Purpose is for conflict resolution when there is a recommendation disagreement among the recommendation disagreement among the voting voting faculty, the Unit Leader, and the Deanfaculty, the Unit Leader, and the Dean

• Reexamines evaluation materialsReexamines evaluation materials

• If consensus cannot be reached then individual If consensus cannot be reached then individual recommendations are forwarded to the CAO (Provost)recommendations are forwarded to the CAO (Provost)

Evaluatee FeedbackEvaluatee Feedback

• Evaluatee will receive evaluation results at each Evaluatee will receive evaluation results at each review stepreview step

• Evaluatee will be given the opportunity to provide Evaluatee will be given the opportunity to provide commentary and additional supporting documentation commentary and additional supporting documentation at each review stepat each review step

• Evaluatee may appeal the results of the review Evaluatee may appeal the results of the review process using established faculty grievance process using established faculty grievance proceduresprocedures

• BPM 1-1-307BPM 1-1-307

Pre-Tenure ReviewPre-Tenure Review

• Mid-point of probationary periodMid-point of probationary period

• Intended as a check on an individualIntended as a check on an individual’’s progress toward tenure s 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 member’s

0 Third full academic year

1 Second full academic year

2 Second full academic year

3 Not applicable

Instruction, Scholarship, and Instruction, Scholarship, and Service WorkloadService 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 Basis for the workload of individuals in the college - fifteen (15) credit hour per semester equated loadhour per semester equated load

• Many faculty will have a work assignment of:Many faculty will have a work assignment of:0.6 - instruction0.6 - instruction0.2 - scholarship0.2 - scholarship0.2 - service0.2 - service

• Weighting may vary as college or unit needs dictateWeighting may vary as college or unit needs dictate

Overall Evaluation Overall Evaluation

• Performance evaluation yields an overall Performance evaluation yields an overall evaluation based on the weighted areas of the evaluation based on the weighted areas of the individualindividual’’s workloads workload

• The weights and the evaluation rating assigned The weights and the evaluation rating assigned for each area are multiplied and the products for each area are multiplied and the products are summed to yield an overall evaluation are summed to yield an overall evaluation measure between one (I) and five (V)measure between one (I) and five (V)

University Evaluation ScaleUniversity Evaluation Scale

The 3 areas and the overall evaluation is assigned The 3 areas and the overall evaluation is assigned according to the university scale, as follows: according to the university scale, as follows:

LEVELLEVEL RATINGRATING OVERALL EVALUATIONOVERALL EVALUATION VV 4.6 – 5.0 4.6 – 5.0 ExcellentExcellent

IVIV 3.6 – 4.5 3.6 – 4.5 Exceeds ExpectationsExceeds Expectations

IIIIII 2.6 – 3.5 2.6 – 3.5 Meets ExpectationsMeets Expectations

IIII 1.6 – 2.5 1.6 – 2.5 Needs ImprovementNeeds Improvement

II 1.0 – 1.5 1.0 – 1.5 UnsatisfactoryUnsatisfactory

External Peer EvaluationExternal Peer Evaluation• Individuals applying for tenure or promotion at any rank Individuals applying for tenure or promotion at any rank

are required to include a minimum of two (2) peer are required to include a minimum of two (2) peer evaluations of scholarship from faculty within the evaluations of scholarship from faculty within the discipline from other institutions 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 candidate’s 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 candidate’s dissertation/thesis committee. Conflicts of interest between reviewer and candidate must be avoided.

• Unit Leader serves as point of contact for external Unit Leader serves as point of contact for external reviewersreviewers

• Need at least 1 month to secure lettersNeed at least 1 month to secure letters

• External peer evaluations are not required for faculty External peer evaluations are not required for faculty preparing for pre-tenure and post-tenure preparing for pre-tenure and post-tenure comprehensive reviewcomprehensive review

• Candidates shall have the right to view external review Candidates shall have the right to view external review letters and this fact shall be conveyed to all prospective letters and this fact shall be conveyed to all prospective peer reviewerspeer reviewers

• The standard letter of instruction for peer reviewers is The standard letter of instruction for peer reviewers is provided in Appendix E of the NHS Faculty Evaluation provided in Appendix E of the NHS Faculty Evaluation and Performance Policies and Procedures document. and Performance Policies and Procedures document. http://www.unco.edu/nhs/resources/faculty_evalution.htmlhttp://www.unco.edu/nhs/resources/faculty_evalution.html

External Peer EvaluationExternal Peer Evaluation

Basis for Tenure RecommendationBasis for Tenure Recommendation

• Pre-Tenure ReviewPre-Tenure Review- Level IV or V rating for instruction - Level IV or V rating for instruction oror professional activity professional activity- Level III, IV, or V rating for the other two performance areas- Level III, IV, or V rating for the other two performance areas

• TenureTenure- Level IV or V rating for instruction - Level IV or V rating for instruction oror professional activity professional activity- Level III, IV, or V rating for the other two performance areas- Level III, IV, or V rating for the other two performance areas- Assistant professors may only be granted tenure if promoted to - Assistant professors may only be granted tenure if promoted to associate professor at the same timeassociate professor at the same time

• Post-Tenure ReviewPost-Tenure Review

An individual is evaluated on his/her assigned workload over a five-An individual is evaluated on his/her assigned workload over a five-year period. To receive an overall satisfactory performance year period. To receive an overall satisfactory performance evaluation, the faculty member must be rated as Level III or above evaluation, the faculty member must be rated as Level III or above overall, which must include a Level III rating in instructionoverall, which must include a Level III rating in instruction

Basis for Promotion Basis for Promotion RecommendationRecommendation

• Promotion to Associate ProfessorPromotion to Associate Professor- Earned doctorate in the discipline or other terminal degree- Earned doctorate in the discipline or other terminal degree

specified by the unit or program area is requiredspecified by the unit or program area is required

- Level IV or V rating for instruction - Level IV or V rating for instruction oror professional activity professional activity

- Level III, IV, or V rating for the other two performance areas- Level III, IV, or V rating for the other two performance areas

• Promotion to ProfessorPromotion to Professor

- Level IV or V rating for instruction - Level IV or V rating for instruction andand professional activity professional activity

- Level III, IV, or V rating for service- Level III, IV, or V rating for service

Performance StandardsPerformance Standards

• InstructionInstruction - the effective instructor is guided by the - the effective instructor is guided by the ““teacher/scholarteacher/scholar”” model model

• ScholarshipScholarship - Faculty are expected to engage in advancing - Faculty are expected to engage in advancing one or more aspects of their discipline through scholarly pursuitsone or more aspects of their discipline through scholarly pursuits

• ServiceService - - Faculty are expected to contribute substantively to Faculty are expected to contribute substantively to the governance and professionally related service activities of the governance and professionally related service activities of the unit or program area and collegethe unit or program area and college

• Specific guidelines and criteria found in NHS Faculty Evaluation Specific guidelines and criteria found in NHS Faculty Evaluation and Performance Policies and Procedures document (pp. 6-9)and Performance Policies and Procedures document (pp. 6-9)

http://www.unco.edu/nhs/pdf/Fac_eval.pdfhttp://www.unco.edu/nhs/pdf/Fac_eval.pdf

• College performance standards formCollege performance standards form http://www.unco.edu/nhs/pdf/college_performance_standards.pdfhttp://www.unco.edu/nhs/pdf/college_performance_standards.pdf

Typical Faculty Evaluation Timeline Typical Faculty Evaluation Timeline (Tenure Clock)(Tenure Clock)

(TT ASTP with no years credit)(TT ASTP with no years credit)

AY2010-11

AY2011-12

AY2012-13

AY2013-14

AY2014-15

AY2015-16(Tenure effective)

AY2016-17 (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

1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year 4th Year 5th Year 6th Year 7th Year

Probationary period = 7 years

Fall

Spring

SourcesSources• NHS Faculty Evaluation and Performance Policies NHS Faculty Evaluation and Performance Policies

and Procedures documentand Procedures documenthttp://www.unco.edu/nhs/resources/http://www.unco.edu/nhs/resources/

faculty_evalution.htmlfaculty_evalution.html

• Board Policy ManualBoard Policy Manualhttp://www.unco.edu/trustees/Policy_Manual.pdfhttp://www.unco.edu/trustees/Policy_Manual.pdf

• University RegulationsUniversity Regulationshttp://www.unco.edu/trustees/http://www.unco.edu/trustees/University_Regulations.pdfUniversity_Regulations.pdf

Questions and Discussion

Guidelines for Dossier* Guidelines for Dossier* PreparationPreparation

DossierDossier – portfolio of information relative to performance – portfolio of information relative to performance and accomplishments during the comprehensive and accomplishments during the comprehensive evaluation period, which shall include:evaluation period, which shall include:• Updated Updated curriculum vitaecurriculum vitae in university format 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 Other materials determined by the Unit and Program

AreaArea

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 DossierElements in Dossier

• All materials limited to 2-inch loose leaf binderAll materials limited to 2-inch loose leaf binder

Pocket MaterialsPocket Materials• Letter of transmittalLetter of transmittal• University request formsUniversity request forms• Copies of Annual Evaluations – forms, faculty reports, Copies of Annual Evaluations – forms, faculty reports,

unit leader reports, dean reportsunit leader reports, dean reports• Faculty Comprehensive Evaluation – includes current Faculty Comprehensive Evaluation – includes current

year annual reviewyear annual review• Unit Leader Comprehensive Evaluation – includes Unit Leader Comprehensive Evaluation – includes

current year annual reviewcurrent year annual review• Dean Comprehensive EvaluationDean Comprehensive Evaluation

Comprehensive Performance Comprehensive Performance Report – Tab 1Report – Tab 1

• Brief narrative comprehensive summary report of Brief narrative comprehensive summary report of accomplishments over the period that is used to accomplishments over the period that is used to educate and inform your colleagueseducate 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 Instruction Performance Report– Tab 2Report– Tab 2

Guidelines for Instruction MaterialsGuidelines for Instruction Materials• Brief narrative summary report of accomplishments Brief narrative summary report of accomplishments

over the period that is used to educate and inform over the period that is used to educate and inform your colleaguesyour colleagues

• Demonstrate effectiveness as an instructorDemonstrate effectiveness as an instructor• Demonstrate ability to develop studentsDemonstrate ability to develop students’’ ethical and ethical and

critical thinking and analytical and expressive critical thinking and analytical and expressive abilitiesabilities

• Note: In NHS, advising related to career Note: In NHS, advising related to career development and studentsdevelopment and students’’ academic progress will academic progress will be considered service, while mentoring associated be considered service, while mentoring associated with theses and dissertations, directed studies with theses and dissertations, directed studies courses, and the like, will be classified as courses, and the like, will be classified as instructioninstruction

List of suggested materials in NHS Faculty Evaluation document (Appx C)List of suggested materials in NHS Faculty Evaluation document (Appx C)

Professional Activity Professional Activity Performance Report – Tab 3Performance Report – Tab 3

Guidelines for Professional Activity MaterialsGuidelines for Professional Activity Materials• Brief narrative summary report of accomplishments Brief narrative summary report of accomplishments

over the period that is used to educate and inform over the period that is used to educate and inform your colleaguesyour colleagues

• Provide evidence and/or examplesProvide evidence and/or examples• Highlight the significance or noteworthiness of your Highlight the significance or noteworthiness of your

research, scholarship, and grantsresearch, scholarship, and grants


Service Performance Report – Service Performance Report – Tab 4Tab 4

Guidelines for Service MaterialsGuidelines for Service Materials• Brief narrative summary report of accomplishments Brief narrative summary report of accomplishments

over the period that is used to educate and inform your over the period that is used to educate and inform your colleaguescolleagues

• Provide evidence and/or examplesProvide evidence and/or examples• Highlight the significance or noteworthiness of your Highlight the significance or noteworthiness of your

service activitiesservice activities• Note: In NHS, advising related to career Note: In NHS, advising related to career

development and studentsdevelopment and students’’ academic progress will academic progress will be considered service, while mentoring associated be considered service, while mentoring associated with theses and dissertations, directed studies with theses and dissertations, directed studies courses, and the like, will be classified as instructioncourses, and the like, will be classified as instruction


Keys to SuccessKeys to Success

Well prepared, easy-to-read dossier Well prepared, easy-to-read dossier – your application will be seen by – your application will be seen by many people during the evaluation processmany people during the evaluation process

• Carefully follow dossier guidelines - include Carefully follow dossier guidelines - include ALLALL necessary forms and materialsnecessary forms and materials

• Make materials easy to find and read – find examples Make materials easy to find and read – find examples and have your colleagues provide feedback prior toand have your colleagues provide feedback prior to submissionsubmission

• Highlight significance/impact of your efforts Highlight significance/impact of your efforts

• Make efforts obvious to those unfamiliar with your Make efforts obvious to those unfamiliar with your areaarea

Common ErrorsCommon Errors

Poorly prepared, hard-to-read dossier Poorly prepared, hard-to-read dossier – lacks informative – lacks informative narratives highlighting accomplishmentsnarratives highlighting accomplishments

• Incomplete dossier – missing necessary forms and Incomplete dossier – missing necessary forms and materialsmaterials

• Forms not correctly filled out or containing math Forms not correctly filled out or containing math mistakesmistakes

• Significance/impact of your efforts not clear – no Significance/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 notnot

Faculty Evaluation Deadlines*Faculty Evaluation Deadlines*

Comprehensive Reviews Comprehensive Reviews - other than pre-tenure - other than pre-tenure reviews (including applications for promotion and/or reviews (including applications for promotion and/or tenure, and graduate faculty status; and post-tenure tenure, and graduate faculty status; and post-tenure review): review): • DUE: NHS DeanDUE: NHS Dean’’s office – February 1*s office – February 1*• Academic Affairs – First half of March Academic Affairs – First half of March

Pre-Tenure ReviewsPre-Tenure Reviews • DUE: NHS DeanDUE: NHS Dean’’s office – March 1s office – March 1

* Deadline under review. May be moved to Fall * Deadline under review. May be moved to Fall ’’13.13.

SourcesSources• NHS Faculty Evaluation and Performance Policies NHS Faculty Evaluation and Performance Policies

and Procedures documentand Procedures documenthttp://www.unco.edu/nhs/resources/http://www.unco.edu/nhs/resources/

faculty_evalution.htmlfaculty_evalution.html

• Board Policy ManualBoard Policy Manualhttp://www.unco.edu/trustees/Policy_Manual.pdfhttp://www.unco.edu/trustees/Policy_Manual.pdf

• University RegulationsUniversity Regulationshttp://www.unco.edu/trustees/http://www.unco.edu/trustees/University_Regulations.pdfUniversity_Regulations.pdf

Questions and Discussion

NHS Faculty Tenure & Promotion Workshop May 1, 2013.

Documents

Transcript of NHS Faculty Tenure & Promotion Workshop May 1, 2013.