Counseling, Leadership, Adult Education & School Psychology Department
ANNUAL REVIEW OF FACULTY POLICY
1. The purposes of an annual faculty evaluation are to: 1) provide for self-development by identifying, reinforcing, and sharing the strengths of both faculty as individuals and the department as a whole; 2) extend opportunities for continuous professional development; and 3) identify and strengthen the roles of faculty members within their respective programs, the department and the university. The annual evaluation also provides information that may be used in tenure and promotion recommendations, in the awarding of performance and merit raises, and/or in decisions regarding the retention of faculty or of tenure itself (PPS 8.09).
2. While decisions regarding annual review and tenure/promotion are not necessarily related, annual departmental evaluations will be used as a source of data for a faculty member’s file used in tenure and promotion decisions. Specific guidelines for evaluating tenure-track faculty are found in PPS 8.01, and policies and procedures for tenure and promotion are located in UPPS 04.04.21. Laws of the State of Texas concerning the evaluation of tenured faculty are found in Education Code, Section 51.942, which is appended to PPS 8.09.
3. The annual departmental evaluation of faculty is the direct source of decisions regarding both the retention of faculty and increases in salary. In evaluating performance, the departmental personnel committee, chair, and college dean will consider the faculty member’s contributions in the context of departmental, college, and institutional needs, as well as the faculty member’s past performance and career path.
4. Faculty who meet departmental expectations as determined by the annual evaluation will be eligible for reappointment.
5. If the faculty member is on a tenure-track or extended-term contract, failure to meet departmental expectations will cause the department to consider whether reappointment is warranted. If the department determines that a non-tenured faculty member is not to be retained, appropriate notice will be given to the faculty member. If the faculty member is to be retained, the chair will provide the faculty member with specific written suggestions for improvement.
1. Annually, in early January, the Chair will notify all tenured and tenure track faculty of the required electronic and hard copy materials to be submitted by February 1. The materials necessary are determined by the Personnel Committee (PC) and are noted in Appendix A.
2. This annual evaluation is in addition to any other procedures and deadlines having to do with the tenure and promotion evaluation process (PPS 8.10) and the attendant reappointment process.
3. All faculty annual evaluation packets will be collected in a central location and PC members will have full access to them for the month of February. PC members will be provided with rating sheets (Appendix B) and rating guides (Appendices C, D, & E) for evaluating each faculty member’s materials. Rating sheets will be tallied initially on or about February 15 for the purposes of chair conferences, but they may be submitted until March 1. Ratings will be averaged and entered into a cumulative spread sheet for the purpose of input into merit recommendations.
4. Beginning approximately February 15, the department chair will meet with all tenure- track faculty members, as well as any tenured faculty member who has received a majority vote of the PC indicating that he or she is not meeting performance standards for the department. In the latter case, PPS 8.09 will be immediately implemented. In the case of untenured faculty, the chair will discuss their annual evaluation materials, share a summary of their PC evaluations, discuss any professional development issues or suggestions, and discuss progress toward tenure and promotion. Tenured faculty can also request a meeting with the chair, and, likewise, the chair may request a meeting with any faculty member for the purpose of faculty development.
5. By July 15, the chair will write a formal evaluation letter for each tenure track faculty member, as well as any other faculty member who requests one. This letter will be shared with the faculty member who may then write a letter of rebuttal regarding the content of the chair’s letter. Both letters will then be entered into the faculty member’s file.
6. All non-tenured or tenure track faculty will be reviewed (primarily on their teaching evaluations) by their respective Program Coordinators following each semester. The department chair will review such faculty members annually and report to them a rating of satisfactory or unsatisfactory, with or without suggestions for improvement.
III. CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION
1. Faculty performance in the CLAS department is evaluated on documentation of teaching, scholarly/creative activity, and leadership/service. Collegial contributions to the University community by the candidates are also important. Collegial faculty members are expected to contribute to the positive functioning of their respective program, department and the university.
2. Faculty do not work on a one-year cycle. Three to five years is a more accurate reflection of faculty productivity or the time needed to bring projects to completion. Merit pay determination should reflect the reality of faculty productivity cycles (length of time to complete a book, complete a research project, take a scholarly article to publication, develop and refine a course). Therefore, annual review for the purpose of determining merit pay will evaluate the current year’s productivity based on the current and previous two calendar years (except for faculty members who have been employed for less than two years at Texas State). This policy addresses the imbalance in merit pay distribution from one year to the next that results from the common and unavoidable occurrence that a faculty member has several projects reach fruition during one year and none the next. It also addresses the likelihood that journal articles and books are counted more than once (the year they are accepted and the year they are published).
3. In all evaluation of faculty performance, both summative and formative, our Department values:
· cross-disciplinary and traditional scholarship and activities; we recognize that the worth of cross-disciplinary scholarship may be more difficult to assess because it crosses rather than is situated within traditional academic disciplinary boundaries, but we are committed to faculty assessment identifies and credits faculty members for the importance of such work.
· all faculty work, including that which integrates scholarship, teaching, and service; we recognize that faculty work that such integrative work may not fit easily within the traditional categories of scholarship, teaching, and service, but are committed to faculty assessment that identifies and credits faculty members for the importance of such work.
· equally collaborative and individual scholarship, teaching, and service; we recognize that the tradition in the academic workplace has been to place more value on individual accomplishments, but we are committed to faculty assessment that identifies and credits faculty members for the importance of both collaborative and individual work.
· faculty work reflecting their diversity of personal and work histories, academic backgrounds, professional allegiances, and interests; we are committed to faculty assessment that identifies and credits faculty members for the worth of their unique expression of academic work through scholarship, teaching, and service.
1. High-quality teaching at all instructional levels is an essential criterion for appointment, tenure, and promotion decisions. Every effort shall be made to recognize and emphasize excellence in teaching. The general test to be applied is that the faculty member is engaged regularly and effectively in high quality teaching. Collaboration with colleagues is viewed as a means of enhancing teaching.
2. Documentation of Criteria for Teaching. Evidence of effective teaching and student advisement can be established through careful consideration of productivity and quality. Materials to be used in annual evaluations may include the following items: student quantitative and qualitative evaluations; peer observations of teaching performance; published materials on teaching techniques; letters, awards, and other evidence of teaching.
3. Productivity. Productivity refers to the efficient application of time and energy to the instructional needs of the department and the College. Productivity may be demonstrated by the following examples of documentation for teaching effectiveness:
a. number and nature of courses taught each semester [Reviewers should recognize that some courses may place a heavier demand on faculty time and effort than others.]
b. number of completed doctoral dissertations and master’s theses supervised. [Consideration should also be given to the number of doctoral dissertation and master’s thesis committees on which the candidate has served as a member and on the number of seminar papers directed.]
c. number of student advisees [Appropriate consideration should be given to the faculty member’s expected or assigned contributions to advising, mentoring, recruitment, retention, and timely graduation of students.]
B. SCHOLARLY/CREATIVE ACTIVITY
1. Scholarly/creative activity is among the primary functions of the university. A faculty member’s contribution will vary from one academic or professional field to another, but the general test to be applied is that the faculty member is engaged consistently and effectively in scholarly/creative activity of quality and distinction. Evidence of high quality and distinction can be established through careful consideration of productivity and quality. Collaboration with colleagues is viewed as a means of enhancing scholarly/creative activity. The quality of the results and the relative contributions of the participants must be weighed, and documentation of the role and contribution of the individual is expected for collaborative efforts.
2. The CLAS department recognizes that faculty scholarly/creative activity enhances teaching and vice versa; therefore, an inclusive view of scholarly/creative activity is held that recognizes the importance of discipline-based (theoretical), application-oriented (action), and pedagogical (instructional) research and scholarship.
3. Even though faculty members may publish in many venues, peer-reviewed works will receive greater emphasis when decisions are made related to appointment, tenure, and promotion. Venues should be sought that will result in the greatest recognition by colleagues; therefore, more emphasis will be given to national/international works than to others.
4. Documentation of Criteria for Research and Scholarly/Creative Activity. Publication in selective venues is the primary form of documentation. Given that the quality and distinction of achievements in research and scholarly/creativity is of higher value than the quantity of these works, decisions based on these achievements will be somewhat subjective.
5. Productivity. The productive scholar is consistently involved in scholarly/creative activity. Productivity may be demonstrated by the following examples of documentation for scholarly/creative activity effectiveness. The number and quality of:
a. refereed journal articles published;
b. books published;
c. book editorships of scholarly significance published;
d. book chapters published;
e. monographs published;
f. non-refereed journal articles published in journals that are recognized by the department as premier outlets for scholarship/creative activity ;
g. refereed presentations at national/international meetings;
h. refereed presentations at state/regional/local meetings.
6. Scholarly/creative activity may also be demonstrated in a variety of other means. These include, but are not limited to the number of:
a. external and internal grant proposals that support teaching, scholarly/creative activity, and leadership/service. Candidates will be credited with achievements in proposal submissions and grants awarded, with greatest weight given to grants awarded. Internal grants, while important in many ways to faculty goals, will receive less consideration than external grant activity in appointment, tenure, and promotion decisions;
b. journal editorships;
c. tests or assessment instruments developed;
d. software and/or multimedia products developed;
e. internet products developed;
f. non-refereed electronic publications;
g. technical reports published;
h. abstracts and/or proceedings of professional presentations published;
i. grant proposal reviews conducted;
j. book reviews published.
7. Quality. The quantity of published material is not sufficient evidence of scholarly/creative activity. The quality of each endeavor must be carefully documented and is oftentimes more important than quantity. Quality refers to the insights, significance, and importance of the work to a degree indicated by the stature of the venue (e.g., acceptance rate, circulation number, subscriber characteristics, etc.) in which it is published, or for creative works, the importance of the venue. Research grants solicited and those awarded on the basis of scholarly merit of the proposal are also indicators of quality scholarly/creative activity. Other evidence may include citations in scholarly and professional books and journals; the salience of venue stature; use of findings by policy makers, practitioners or judicial bodies; reprinting of documents; abstraction for other publications; or other forms of recognition by colleagues in the field. Documentation of the quality of venues is expected.
1. In addition to demonstrated excellence in teaching and scholarly/creative activity, candidates for appointment, tenure, and promotion should have a commitment to the University and their professions through participation in leadership/service activities. Such participation may take several different forms: leadership/service to the university [leadership/service on committees charged by the Texas State Faculty Senate or by an administrator at the Dean level or higher]; leadership/service to the college [service on a committee charged by the College of Education Faculty Advisory Council or by the Dean of the College of Education]; leadership/service to the department [service on a committee charged by the chair of the department]; and leadership/service to the profession or to higher education in general [leadership/service appointments made by officials representing professional organizations, public schools, cities, states, or the nation].
2. Faculty members are expected to participate in the conduct of department, college, and university activities; in appropriate professional organizations in their field; and in professional leadership/service to schools, colleges, universities, and other agencies in the community. Evidence of superior leadership/service may be established through careful consideration in the areas of productivity and quality. While leadership/service activity is expected of each faculty member, leadership/service shall not substitute for expectations in teaching or in scholarly/creative activity.
3. Establishing a record of excellence in teaching and scholarly/creative activity demands careful time management by beginning faculty members or those new to the University. Therefore, leadership/service expectations of
untenured faculty members will be lower higher than those for untenured faculty members.
4. Documentation of Effective Leadership/Service.Lists and descriptions of activities, copies of materials produced, letters from groups served, and any forms of recognition will be examples of supporting data for effective leadership/service.
5. Productivity. Evidence of a faculty member’s productivity is manifested by the extent of participation on departmental, college, and university committees; in professional organizations at the local, state, or national levels; in outreach activities related to student settings; and in service to scholarly/creative activity, such as serving as editor, reviewer, consultant, speaker, and panel member. The level and frequency and stature of participation will be considered.
6. Quality. Leadership/service involves working creatively with others so that professional knowledge has an impact on the schools, colleges, professional organizations, community agencies, and other institutions. The impact of leadership/service on the group served is of critical importance in evaluating quality of leadership/service.
IV. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ANNUAL REVIEW AND TENURE/PROMOTION REVIEW
While these two processes are not necessarily related, successful candidates for consideration of tenure and promotion typically have exceeded expectations during annual reviews.
Recommendations for Annual Review for the Calendar Year 200X
The submitted material be as follows:
- Annual Activity Report
- Identify publications with “refereed”
- Identify “Current Activities: Works in Progress” with the following:
i. “in press” with letter documenting acceptance and publication date
ii. “accepted pending changes”
iii. “recommended revisions and resubmission”
- Full vita
- Teaching evaluations (qualitative and quantitative) for ALL classes taught during the year or an explanation why document not in packet
- Course load (provided to us by the Dean’s Office)
- Copies of all publications during the calendar year of 200X
- A self-statement of no more than two typed pages that provides a summary of the faculty member's productivity and quality of teaching, scholarship/creative activity, and leadership/service.
You need not include:
Notes from students
Letters of recognition or honors
CLAS Personnel Committee Faculty Annual Evaluation
Please refer to rating guidelines in Appendices C-E
Scale for merit evaluation:
4 points: Exemplary
3 points: Exceeds Expectations
2 points: Meets Expectations
1 point: Below Expectations
Meets performance criteria of the department: ______yes______no
Merit evaluation: Score_______
Meets performance criteria of the department: ______yes______no
Merit evaluation: Score_______
Meets performance criteria of the department: ______yes______no
Merit evaluation: Score______