Faculty Performance Evaluation (5-year review)

BACKGROUND

Tenured faculty will participate in a performance evaluation once every five years. The faculty performance evaluation (FPE) is intended to recognize accomplishments and foster future plans of faculty members who are contributing to the mission of the College and University and, in rare cases, to provide guidance to those not contributing meaningfully to the well-being of the College or University.  The goal of the evaluation is as much to promote future planning as to review past progress. In particular, the FPE is designed to encourage and assist those aspiring to increased impact or further excellence.

Faculty will meet with the Dean in the year following promotion and tenure and as part of the first five-year evaluation. Subsequent five-year reviews will involve a meeting with the Department Head, and, upon the request of the faculty member, the Dean.

A faculty performance evaluation for tenured faculty members was approved in principle by the faculty of the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences as a method for assisting and supporting faculty members to maintain vigorous contributions to teaching, research, and service throughout their careers. The basic rationale for such a review is presented in a statement in the EMS Expectations and Faculty Commitment document, approved by the EMS faculty on 23 October 1996. It is proposed that the performance evaluation procedures be modified from time to time to take into account the evolution of the University-wide practice of extended faculty career development reviews.

The College will develop and maintain a separate but parallel assessment process for non-tenure track faculty members, including those with fixed-term and standing appointments. This procedure will operate within the spirit of the proposed tenured-faculty performance evaluation process, with sensitivity to the specific career development experiences of non-tenure track faculty members.

FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATION

The evaluation of the performance of tenured EMS faculty members will be based on the criteria established by a statement in the EMS Expectations and Faculty Commitment document:

The primary responsibility of each member of the EMS faculty is to contribute to the achievements of the University and the College in fostering the intellectual growth and progress of students, in advancing knowledge and understanding, and in serving society. To meet this responsibility, each member of the faculty must maintain and demonstrate a deep and career-long commitment to improving both personal and College capabilities in teaching, research, and service. It is recognized that the characteristics of the contributions and the balance between them may change as a career proceeds.

To enhance the strength of the College and to further the objective of maintaining vitality in teaching, research, and service throughout an academic career, the members of the EMS faculty accept and welcome increasing responsibility for the success of the College through a variety of activities, such as:

  • Developing and participating in College-wide peer evaluation to improve EMS classroom teaching
  • Mentoring junior faculty and fostering the professional success of others
  • Developing and maintaining key contacts in industry and government
  • Seeking professional recognition and awards for deserving colleagues
  • Fostering meaningful interaction with students outside of class
  • Serving in a governance capacity in support of departmental, College, or University goals

PROCEDURE GOVERNING THE EVALUATION

The Faculty Performance Evaluation Process is intended to provide an opportunity to review and acknowledge past achievements, and particularly to provide an opportunity for planning future activities. To help achieve these objectives, the EMS faculty member will be notified two semesters in advance of the upcoming review. Late in the Fall semester, the dean will send a letter to the faculty member requesting the submission of the following to the department:

  • A one-page document that:
    • Discusses current challenges in the faculty’s field and (
    • Summarizes key achievements over the last five years that provide building blocks to address these challenges. Discussion of accomplishments should be restricted to the past five years (see FPE TENURE STAY/LEAVE POLICY for exception).
  • A one to three page forward-looking document that (i) describes objectives for the next five years, (ii) details planned activities to achieve these objectives, and (iii) specifies milestones that can be used to assess progress.
  • A short CV that includes education, professional appointments, honors and awards, outreach, editorships and other examples of synergistic activities, papers, books, and other scholarly products published within the review period.  It is expected the length of this document would not exceed 5 pages.

The Dean’s request to the faculty member will include a request to the Department Head to provide the faculty member with the following:

  • A list of courses taught with SRTE results for the past 5 years.
  • A summary of research support received by the faculty member over the previous five years (working with the Office of the Associate Dean for Graduate Education and Research.)

When items 1-5 have been assembled, reviewed, and edited as appropriate by the faculty member to ensure completeness, the materials will be submitted to the Department Head prior to the announced deadline.

The Department Head will write a review of the faculty member’s performance and future plans. The full package will be submitted by the Department Head to the Dean’s Office. One copy of all materials along with an electronic copy in PDF format should be submitted. Outside letters will not be solicited nor considered as part of the review.

The College Faculty Performance Evaluation Committee will review the materials and prepare a written summary and assessment following this standard review process:

  • A committee member who is not from the reviewed faculty member’s department will write the first draft of the Committee’s review statement. FPE committee members should expect to be responsible for preparing one or more reviews.
  • Another committee member, preferably from the reviewed faculty member’s department (unless there are noted conflicts of interest), should provide detailed comments on the first draft.
  • The final draft will be prepared by the assigned FPE member after taking into account comments from the whole committee.
  • The committee chair will produce the final versions of all evaluations for consistency and completeness

The Committee statement should reflect both the consensus and the breadth of opinion within the Committee. Written comments of the FPE committee should focus on accomplishment and future goals in accordance with College expectations. The evaluation should include a realistic appraisal of the candidate’s ability to achieve the proposed goals. The Faculty Performance Evaluation Committee can include recommendations for action in support of a faculty member’s career goals. The file and accompanying letter will be forwarded to the Department Head with a copy to the Dean.

Faculty members may request to meet with the FPE Committee as part of the evaluation.  Such requests should be made through the Dean’s office in late January, after the Department Head has prepared her/his review.  The FPE Committee may request a meeting with a faculty member or her/his Department Head to discuss the evaluation.  After the review is submitted to the Dean, the FPE committee may request a meeting with the Dean, or vice versa, to discuss a given case.

TENURE STAY/LEAVE POLICY

When a faculty member’s approved leave (e.g., tenure stay, full sabbatical) defers her/his five-year evaluation, the accomplishments and materials produced during the approved leave year are to be included in the next five-year review. In such instances, that review would include materials for the past six years, consistent in principle with the pre-tenure process. As in any case, the evaluation will focus on quality and quantity of scholarly products – not time since degree, hire, or previous promotion.

COMPOSITION OF EVALUATION COMMITTEE

One tenured faculty member from each department of the College will be assigned to the EMS FPE Committee. The faculty of each department (tenured and tenure-track) will establish and adopt its protocols for identifying its representative to the College Committee. If a member of the FPE Committee is scheduled for a performance evaluation, the Committee will convene without that member present in order to perform the evaluation.

CONCLUDING THE EVALUATION

The Department Head will conclude the evaluation by meeting with the faculty member and discussing the written evaluations. A copy of the written evaluations of the College FPE Committee and the Department Head will be provided to the faculty member at the conclusion of the evaluation.

The Dean will reserve time on her/his calendar to meet with each faculty member as part of the first five-year review following tenure. In subsequent five-year reviews the Department Head will reserve time to meet with each faculty member to discuss the review. If requested by the faculty member or Dean, a meeting will be arranged with the faculty member and the Dean to discuss the evaluation. A summary of the meeting will be shared in writing to the faculty member’s Department Head.

The Dean, in conjunction with the Department Head, will be responsible for initiating action, if any, in response to the evaluation. In the event that improvements in performance are recommended, the faculty member and the faculty member’s Department Head will prepare an appropriate response, the implementation of which should be monitored by the Department Head. The Dean will be notified of the effectiveness of a plan to improve and enhance a faculty member’s performance on a two- and four-year interval. Finally, a clear link must be established between the performance review and faculty rewards.

For the vast majority of faculty who are effectively carrying out the College mission, the FPE committee should make recommendations as to the appropriate recognition that could further enhance the quality of a faculty member’s work. The evaluation process may also identify faculty who are in need of redirection or revitalization. In these cases, a development plan should be formulated to help the faculty member improve his/her academic contribution. If appropriate, such faculty development plans will be accompanied by institutional resources and assistance necessary for their successful implementation. The Dean will discuss the results of the evaluation and, if appropriate, recommend a plan of professional development. Any such development plan should be constructive in nature, and again, if appropriate, supported by institutional resources for implementation. In cases where a plan is developed, follow-through to ensure its implementation is required. At two and four year intervals, the Dean will review the progress of the development plan and, if necessary, make adjustments in the approach.

TIMELINE and SCHEDULE

The faculty member’s documents will be due to the Department Head in Mid-January, normally around the 15th. The complete package will be submitted to the Five-Year Performance Review Committee by the end of January. The Dean will meet with the Review Committee prior to each year’s review to give a detailed charge and a summary of the review procedure. The FPE Committee will normally begin meetings in early February.

The performance of all faculty members, regardless of rank, will normally be evaluated every five years after the award of tenure in the College, on the later of the next five-year anniversary of review for tenure or the most recent formal review for promotion.

Examples:

  • An associate professor reviewed in 1995 for tenure awarded in July 1996 would have performance evaluations in academic years beginning in the fall semesters of 2000, 2005.
  • If the faculty members were reviewed formally for promotion in 1998 at the department and college levels, then performance evaluations would occur in 2003, 2008, regardless of whether the promotion was awarded.

REVISION HISTORY

  • Approved by the EMS Faculty 10/29/97 -Editorial changes (replacing “post tenure review” with “faculty performance evaluation”) to correspond with HR-40 revisions effective July 1, 1999 by JAD 2/8/99.
  • Modified by the EMS Faculty Advisory Committee (to respond to the recommendations of the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs, JSN 4/14/00) and approved by the EMS Faculty 10/30/01.
  • Modified by the EMS Faculty Advisory Committee (to respond to policy HR-40 Evaluation of Faculty Performance approved by faculty senate on 12/11/07 and by the University President on 1/29/08) and approved by the EMS Faculty on 4/23/08.
  • Modified per recommendations of the 2011-12 Faculty Performance Evaluation Committee, which were reviewed and approved by the EMS Executive Council (December 2012) and the EMS Faculty Advisory Committee (January 2013).
  • Modified by Dean (to respond to handling of faculty stay/leave year in FPE) and approved by EMS Executive Council (March 17, 2015).
  • Modified by Dean (to change routing of evaluation to Department Head and inclusion of optional meeting with Dean) and approved by EMS Executive Council and Faculty-Staff Meeting (November 23, 2015).
  • Modified by EMS Faculty Advisory Committee (based on input from Dean and EMS Faculty Performance Review Committee) 29 March, 2018 and approved by Dean on 14 May 2018.