Revised Faculty Handbook and Manual for Faculty Evaluation
To: Deans, Directors, Department Heads
From: Sarah Gardial, Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs
Date: August 3, 2009
During the 2008-2009 academic year, several revisions were made to the Faculty Handbook and the Manual for Faculty Evaluation. These changes were initiated in coordination with the Faculty Senate Faculty Affairs Committee, the Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs, and the Council of Deans, and they were responses to concerns regarding the practical effectiveness of the major revisions of these two documents that occurred three years ago. The consensus was that refinements were called for. All changes have been subsequently approved by the Faculty Senate, the Provost, the Council of Deans, the Chancellor, the Vice President for UTIA and, where appropriate, the Board of Trustees. What follows is an executive summary of the changes in the two documents.
I. Changes Affecting Both Annual Performance Review and Retention
a. For both UTK and UTSI, the annual retention and annual performance review will be completed simultaneously in the fall semester with a common reporting form. (UTIA will continue with a spring evaluation schedule as better suits to their 12-month appointments and annual workload.) Previously, retention reviews for probationary faculty at UTK and UTSI were conducted each fall, and annual performance reviews for all faculty members (including probationary) were conducted each spring. This created two problems. First, department heads were required to conduct two evaluations of their probationary faculty members each academic year (one per each semester). Second, the spring timing of the annual faculty performance review dictated a calendar year period for faculty evaluation (January through December), rather than an academic year review (August through July), the latter of which is more consistent with 9-month faculty members’ employment and workload assignments. To remedy both of these problems, the retention and annual performance reviews are combined into one report and one reporting form (see the attached document), and the timing of this combined review for UTK and UTSI will be the fall semester of each year.
b. Standardize the Faculty Activity Reports. Each college or department will provide a standard form on which its faculty members will report their activities for the evaluation period.
c. Department Head’s right of response. The Department Head may formally respond in the event his/her review of a faculty member is overturned by the Dean. This response will be distributed to both the faculty member in question and the dean.
d. Nature of information during the review process. The information included in the review process and narrative may only contain documented and substantiated information – no rumor or speculation.
II. Changes Affecting Annual Performance Review
a. The review period is lengthened to three years (versus one). The actual period of review will encompass the three preceding academic years to better capture the long-term nature of many faculty members’ scholarship activities. The current one-year period is viewed as too narrow and, especially when combined with merit pool considerations, may be hit-or-miss in showcasing the true productivity of a faculty member engaged in a long-term process of book publications, grants, etc.
b. Communication among participants (including faculty members and administrations) during the review process. Communication among members of the review process should only occur in the context of the formal review system, i.e., no ex parte communications.
c. Revised External Compensation and Annual Report Form. A revised form on which faculty members are required to report external compensation during the review period was previously created by the Vice Chancellor for Research and the Council of Deans. This form has subsequently been refined and approved by the Faculty Senate (see the Faculty Handbook, Chapter 7).
d. Review for tenured faculty members in good standing. For tenured faculty who are in good standing (i.e., who are not on Cumulative Performance Review and have a previous evaluation that meets or exceeds expectations), the annual evaluation will contain the Annual Performance Review form plus a required narrative by the department head every third year. In the intervening years, the Faculty Activity Report may be substituted for the department head narrative. This change is made to decrease department head workloads in cases where faculty performance is clearly and consistently meeting expectations. However, a faculty member “in good standing” has the right to ask for a full narrative evaluation in any year that they deem it desirable.
e. Pilot program on a new five-point scale for annual review. Due to dissatisfaction with the current four-point scale as dictated by the Board of Trustees for faculty performance evaluation and merit pay, a new five-point scale will be piloted in the coming three years. The purpose is 1) to provide two evaluation points both above and below the average evaluation and 2) to more clearly separate faculty performance review from merit pool decisions, as is dictated by good performance evaluation theory and practice. This new scale is contained in the new form for Annual Faculty Performance Review (see the attached document).
III. Changes Affecting Annual Retention Review
a. Substantive reviews in year four. Beginning in the fourth year of retention review, the focus will be on the probationary faculty member’s ability to meet tenure requirements for the department, college, and campus. This will be accomplished by asking the faculty members to create a “pre-dossier” for review.
b. Clarify the meaning of the tenured faculty members vote. There has been considerable lack of clarity regarding the nature of the faculty retention votes during the probationary period. The revisions now indicate that in the first three years of the probationary period, the vote will attest to the faculty member’s ability to establish and sustain a level of performance that is consistent with the faculty member’s expectations at rank. Beginning in year four, the vote increasingly addresses the faculty member’s ability to meet tenure requirements (see III a above).
We believe that the changes will all improve the processes and outcomes of our faculty evaluation and retention processes. They represent a massive amount of work in the previous academic year (with special kudos to Joan Heminway and the Faculty Affairs Committee of the Faculty Senate). We are tackling a whole range of new issues for the coming year, and you can expect to see revisions in the Handbook next summer, as well.
As always, the goals is to refine our processes to make this campus a destination of choice for faculty. In that regard, I am happy to receive suggestions from any of you. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments regarding the most recent changes.
Posted: August 5, 2009