Faculty Evaluation Guidelines and Annual Department Meeting Updates
This document outlines the faculty evaluation guidelines including post-tenure review, annual review, and promotion/tenure criteria. It also provides updates on upcoming department meetings scheduled for September to December 2020.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE Meeting: May 5, 2020
I. MINUTES OF MAY 11, 2018 DEPARTMENT MEETING II. ANNOUNCEMENTS & UPDATES: A. Future Department Meetings 1. September 11, 2020: 1:15-3:15pm Harlingen 2. October 9, 2020: 1:15-3:15pm Videoconference 3. November 13, 2020: 1:15-3:15pm - Videoconference 4. December 4, 2020: 1:15-3:15pm - Videoconference
POST-TENURE REVIEW ANNUAL REVIEW PROMOTION/TENURE 1. A CONTINUOUS SERIES OF ANNUAL REVIEWS THAT CULMINATE IN A MAJOR REVIEW (6-YEAR REVIEW CYCLES) 2. FACULTY SHOULD ALWAYS BE WORKING TOWARD SATISFACTORILY COMPLETING THE NEXT MAJOR REVIEW 3. FACULTY PROFILE TOOL (FPT): FPT is a cornerstone of the review process. Keep up to date update at least twice annually (February/August). Remember to update article/book status (submitted, accepted, published) Include a specific date for publications/conferences (e.g., September 2019)
REVIEW DOSSIERS: GENERAL GUIDELINES 1. Annual Evaluations are Cumulative (and not discrete) a. Each subsequent annual evaluation shall be cumulative in nature, i.e., all relevant achievements and activities since the faculty member was placed on tenure track, or since the faculty member s last major review will be faculty member s dossier. (6-year Review Cycles) included in the b. Each annual evaluation shall describe, quantitatively and qualitatively, the candidate s annual yearly progress toward meeting the criteria for tenure, promotion, or post-tenure review in the three areas of reaching, research/scholarship, and service (see Appendices C.1, C.2, C.3) c. Each faculty member is required to maintain a cumulative and annual total of activity points awarded to them each year in each category of evaluation and to include this information in their dossier. (p. 2). d. It is the responsibility of the candidate to provide a complete tenure and promotion dossier adhering to University and Departmental requirements.
APPENDIX C1. GUIDELINES FOR ANNUAL YEARLY PROGRESS TOWARD TENURE & PROMOTION TO ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Summary Evaluation Tenure & Promotion Decision TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS Minimum Requirement - Student Evaluations Student Evaluation Rating* Minimum Activity Points (cumulative)*** <10% below neutral 3.8 to 4.49 2 <10% below neutral 3.8 to 4.49 4 <10% below neutral 3.8 to 4.49 6 <10% below neutral 3.8 to 4.49 8 <10% below neutral 3.8 to 4.49 10 <10% below neutral 3.8 to 4.49 12 Meets Expectations Minimum Requirement - Student Evaluations Student Evaluation Rating* Minimum Activity Points (cumulative)*** <10% below neutral 4.5 to 5.0 4 <10% below neutral 4.5 to 5.0 6 <10% below neutral 4.5 to 5.0 8 <10% below neutral 4.5 to 5.0 10 <10% below neutral 4.5 to 5.0 12 <10% below neutral 4.5 to 5.0 15 Exceeds Expectations RESEARCH & PUBLICATION Minimum Publications (cumulative)** 1 sole or lead (first) author? (yes/no) Minimum Activity Points (cumulative)*** Significance Narrative 0 1 1 2 3 4 1 - Yes/No 15 Yes/No 0 3 7 10 12 Meets Expectations Minimum Publications (cumulative)** 1 sole or lead (first) author? (yes/no) Minimum Activity Points (cumulative)*** Significance Narrative 1 2 2 3 4 5 2 - Yes/No 20 Yes/No 1 6 10 14 18 Exceeds Expectations SERVICE Minimum Activity Points (cumulative)*** 1 1 4 10 15 20 Meets Expectations Minimum Activity Points (cumulative)*** 2 5 10 15 20 25 Exceeds Expectations *Annual Review and Tenure & Promotion Committees have flexibility to deviate from this guideline based on factors such as size of teaching load, size of class, type of class (e.g., required statistics), quality of syllabi and testing instruments, rigor of grading, and peer observation. **Annual Review and Tenure & Promotion Committees have flexibility to deviate from this guideline due to quality and/or impact of publication and to account for the type of research underway (e.g., book project or multi-year research project (see Evaluation Criteria & Standards, p. 3 fn. 5). ***Faculty are required to maintain a cumulative total of activity points awarded to them each year in each category of evaluation and include this information in their dossier. NOTE: The failure to meet the minimum criteria for "meets expectations" in any category of evaluation will result in a rating of "does not meet expectations" for that category. OVERALL SUMMARY RATING EXCEEDS EXPECTATIONS: Must Exceed Expectations in 2 categories of evaluation (one of the two categories must be Research & Scholarship) and at least Meet Expectations in the remaining 1 category. MEETS EXPECTATIONS: Must at least Meet Expectations in all 3 categories of evaluation (but does not Exceed Expectations). DOES NOT MEET EXPECTATIONS: Does Not Meet Expectations in any 1 category of evaluation. UNSATISFACTORY: Does Not Meet Expectations in any 2 categories of evaluation.
REVIEW DOSSIERS: A FACULTY RESPONSIBILITY 1. The ARC can only evaluate what is in a dossier so submit a complete dossier (don t wait to add material on appeal) a. It is the responsibility of the candidate to provide a complete annual review, tenure and promotion, promotion, or post-tenure review dossier to the review committee that adheres to University and Departmental requirements. b. Departmental mentors and the Department Chair should provide guidance in this process. c. Additional documentation may be requested by the Committee and/or Department Chair in the course of the evaluation process.
REVIEW DOSSIERS: AUTOMATIC DOCUMENT LOADS 2. What is automatically loaded into Dossier? but not: -- syllabi a. Quantitative Student Evaluations (from beginning of time) -- open-ended student comments -- complimentary emails from students b. Curriculum Vita (based on FPT) c. Previous years reviews (starting w/Fall 2017)
REVIEW DOSSIERS: MANDATORY DOCUMENTS / ANNUAL REVIEW 1. There is no list of mandatory documents other than the HOP/Department Standards: (teaching, research, service narratives in FPT) c. Student evaluations of teaching (automatic upload) d. Peer evaluations of teaching (must upload/scan) e. Action plan for next academic year f. any other materials or supporting documentation as per the department or college criteria (standard documentation) a. a current curriculum vitae b. updates summaries of professional achievements
REVIEW DOSSIERS: MANDATORY DOCUMENTS / TENURE & PROMOTION There is no list of mandatory documents for Tenure & Promotion. HOP states: faculty shall follow the Institutional Format for Faculty Review Dossier in preparing their material. 1. -- When one clicks on the link to IFFRD it takes one to FPT portal. a. There is no Dossiers section for T&P in the HOP. cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence. b. Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus: Whereof one 2. To College Review Committee: STFU!
REVIEW DOSSIERS: TEACHING 1. Teaching Narrative philosophy, pedagogical methods, objectives, improvements to courses 2. Syllabi committee can review for compliance with university requirements, rigor, coverage of relevant materials, etc. 3. Examination/testing instruments 4. Certificates teaching & instructional workshops 5. Open-ended comments by students/emails from students
REVIEW DOSSIERS: TEACHING 1. In Point Accumulation Template (P.A.T.) identify: new courses and new course preparations - online courses - course transitioned to online - teaching related activities (Masters thesis, intern, honors) - recognitions, honors, & awards (for teaching) - teaching at non-home campus - EVIDENCE for most of these claims (a letter, email, etc.)
REVIEW DOSSIERS: SCHOLARSHIP & PUBLICATIONS 1. Research Narrative/Significance Narrative 2. Evidence of peer reviewed publications - books - journal articles + book chapters 3. Evidence of peer review new standards clarify 4. Evidence of reputable (if required) see standards 5. Minimum: 4 to meet and 5 to exceed (or book) no amount of points can substitute or compensate for not meeting the minimum.
REVIEW DOSSIERS: SERVICE 1. Evidence of department level committees and task forces -- copy of the list of departmental committees (posted online) -- email/letter of appointment/minutes of meetings 2. Evidence of college/university level committees -- email/letter of appointment -- print out/scan of website with name listed -- front page of report with committee members listed 3. Evidence of external professional activities -- email/letter of appointment -- print out/scan of website with name listed
REVIEW DOSSIERS: SERVICE 4. Manuscript referee (book, article, proposal) -- acknowledgment of receipt by editor -- copy of your review (optional) 5. Journal editor -- scan of journal masthead with name 6. External presentations/invited talks -- email/letter of invitation/acknowledgment letter -- scan of poster, flyer, announcement, website (with name + title) 7. Conference Panel Chair -- cover of program + page listing your panel/name
REVIEW DOSSIERS: SERVICE 8. Newspaper editorial - scan of the editorial 9. Student Advisement (beyond required office hours) -- keep a detailed log (spreadsheet): Name, time, length, topic 10. Community based organizations -- email/letter of appointment -- scan of website listing name -- copy of work products
REVIEW DOSSIERS: SERVICE 11. Official Testimony: Legislative Committees, Administrative Agencies, Expert Witness - letter of invitation -- copy of written testimony/report 12. Applied policy report, white paper, etc. -- copy of the report 13. Media Citations & Interviews -- scan of the media citations -- scan of website with interview -- detailed log of interviews (media outlet, date, length of time, topic)
REVIEW DOSSIERS: SERVICE 14. Official Faculty Mentor - letter of appointment 15. Official supervisor of TAs -- letter of appointment 16. Summer Teaching -- automatically loads into FPT 17. Attendance at Service-Related Trainings -- certificate of completion
REVIEW DOSSIERS: What if an activity is not listed in the department criteria and standards? -- Identify something comparable in the relevant category (teaching, research, service) and claim credit for with an explanation -- The ARC may accept the item, reject it, or modify the proposed point award -- There is no reason to create standards for items that occur infrequently as we will never be able to list everything -- Use your time wisely. Don t piss away valuable time on things that don t help your career and/or don t expect to be rewarded for things just because they make you feel good.
REVIEW DOSSIERS: What if I am not sure how to count an activity? -- Claim the item in a way, or at a level, that brings the greatest benefit to you, BUT -- Be prepared for the ARC to say NO or to reduce your proposed point award AND ACCEPT IT. MOVE ON. -- If your entire future career (or merit raise) hinges on 0.25 points or 1 article then you have a bigger problem than the annual review process.
REVIEW DOSSIERS: What if the ARC makes a mistake, misunderstands, or misses something? -- The ARC may misinterpret some items, not fully understand it, or or not see it (omit it) -- APPEAL: You can ask the ARC to correct its mistake and it will do so on appeal. BUT -- Be prepared for the ARC to disagree or to reject your appeal AND ACCEPT IT. MOVE ON. -- If your entire future career (or merit raise) hinges on 0.25 points or 1 article then you have a bigger problem than the annual review process.
REVIEW DOSSIERS: Dont be silly, annoying, or insulting. -- The review process is cumbersome, tedious, and time consuming for ARC members. -- Don t make it worse: -- Is it necessary to claim every minor activity? If you have 120 service points in year 4, do we really need to haggle over that presentation you gave to the 3-Legged Hunting Dog Association of Alvin, Texas? -- If you insult the ARC, and treat it with disrespect, do not expect a favorable outcome to your appeal. -- Does this item matter to the final outcome of either merit pay or a major review?
THE COVID EFFECT 1. One-Year Delay (without penalty) in all T&P Decisions -- applies to individuals who apply in Fall 2020 or Fall 2021 -- may opt out and move forward on schedule -- does not apply to Post-Tenure Reviews 2. Department ARCs are required to make accommodations/adjustments: -- teaching evaluations may be lower than normal -- credit for cancelled conferences (if paper prepared + listing in program) -- may slow down publication schedules (but does not change minimum requirements)
