Faculty Evaluation Plan, Department of Slavic, German, and Eurasian Studies

 

1. Overview
 

Evaluation of departmental faculty members begins at the December departmental meeting with a decision on the constitution of the SGES Evaluation Committee. Faculty members submit their calendar portfolios by February 1. The Committee concludes its work by February 28, using the system described below (“Description of Department’s Evaluation System”). Faculty members receive letters prepared by the committee in March, and may appeal their evaluation up to April 1, allowing sufficient time for the opportunity to discuss the evaluation and prior to the timelines established for merit salary decisions.

 

Designation of SGES Evaluation Committee: 

At the December Department Meeting, the Chair initiates the evaluation process by distributing the Annual Faculty Self-Evaluation form and requesting that faculty members generate a PRO report with the required information (See Appendix B) and notifying the faculty of the time line for the process. 

At that same meeting, the tenured and tenure-track faculty members choose the option that determines the structure of the Evaluation Committee for that year. 

Option I: The Evaluation Committee will consist of five tenured or tenure-track faculty members, one of whom is the Department Chair. The makeup of the Committee will reflect proportional representation by rank. 

• That proportion will be defined by the distribution of ranks held by tenured and tenure-track faculty members at the December Department Meeting. 
• There shall be a regular, equitable, annual rotation of faculty membership. 

Option II: The Evaluation Committee will consist of all tenured and tenure-track faculty members of the Department. Role of the Department Chair in the Evaluation Process: 

• Serves as Chair of the Evaluation Committee; 
• Submits numerical rankings; 
• Is evaluated separately from the Department by the Dean of the College and is thus not a financial stake-holder in the evaluation process.

2. Portfolio or Annual Report Preparation 

NOTE: Faculty are responsible for annually maintaining their PRO record, which is also accessed by administration for reports such as the College snapshot of departmental productivity. PRO provides an annual activity report and faculty are advised to view and update their PRO reports before submission of the faculty member’s portfolio to the unit. In classifying your work as major and minor, please bear in mind the definitions in the unit’s Promotion and Tenure Guidelines.

Preparation of Faculty Self-Evaluation Materials: 

By 1 February of each year, all faculty members must submit to the Chair a self-evaluation portfolio for the previous calendar year. 

Each evaluation portfolio, which is comprised of the required categories and multiple sources of data to document teaching/advising, research, and service, includes the following: 

• The PRO report based on the Departmental Annual Faculty Self-Evaluation Form; 
• Syllabi for all courses taught that calendar year; 
• Appropriate and representative samples of teaching materials; 
• Copies of any publications that appeared in that calendar year; 
• Student evaluations (advanced classes with three or fewer students may not have evaluations available) for courses taught (provided by the Department Administrative Assistant); and, 
• One electronic copy of the faculty member's complete up-to-date CV

Evaluation portfolios may include other relevant materials, such as conference programs, notes from students, copies of conference or invited papers presented, letters of thanks or invitation, or other professional supporting materials the submitting faculty member deems relevant. 

3. Portfolio or Annual Report Review and Evaluation 

Review of Evaluation Materials: 

The Chair will make the self-evaluation portfolios and student evaluations available to the members of that year's Merit and Evaluation Committee. 

The Committee is charged with taking into consideration the following criteria in its review of the faculty members’ portfolio:

• Quantity of teaching/advising, research, service; 
• Quality of teaching/advising, research, service; 
• Significance, impact, and effectiveness of teaching/advising, research, service; 
• Continuing eligibility for graduate faculty status, and; 
• Impact of achievement in the areas of teaching/advising, research, and service appropriate to rank.

Work of the Evaluation Committee: 

Each member of the Evaluation Committee carefully reads the self-evaluation portfolios prepared by the other members of the faculty.
 
Each member assigns numerical values for teaching/advising (up to 40 points), research (up to 40 points), and service (up to 20 points) to each portfolio. 

a. Maximum score is 100. 
b. Members assign appropriate rankings, reflecting evaluation of performance. 
c. Evaluators may not award more points than are available, based on allocation of effort, in any one category. 
d. Exceptions to the above: 

• Faculty members on administrative or joint appointment usually hold proportional FTE appointments (i.e., part of their appointment is in the department and part in another unit). These faculty members will be evaluated with the understanding that their departmental performance expectations are rated according to the portion of their appointment in the Department. 
•  In some cases, senior tenured faculty members may have negotiated a different allocation of effort for that year, in which case this allocation will be made clear to the Committee. For example, if a faculty member teaches 3 and 3 (instead of the usual 2 and 2) courses per year, the allocation of effort might be 60-20-20 or 60-30-10. In that case, evaluators award teaching points on the basis of 60 possible points for teaching, instead of the traditional 40. Each Committee member submits their numerical rankings in confidence to the Chair.

Each Committee member submits their numerical rankings in confidence to the Chair. 

Meeting of the Evaluation Committee 

Completion of the Evaluation Process: 

The Evaluation Committee meets and completes its work on or before February 28, usually in a single meeting that lasts as long as necessary for the Committee to complete its work.

Members of the Evaluation Committee negotiate the final values assigned to individual faculty members to reflect relative achievement by the faculty member in that particular calendar year; thus, the process is norm-referenced. 

The work and discussions of the Committee are strictly confidential. 

4. Annual Evaluation of Feedback Process 

Completion of the Evaluation Process:

Between the Evaluation Committee's final meeting and 15 March, the Chair will send a written letter to each faculty member conveying the results of their evaluation and summarizing the results of the Committee's deliberations and evaluation. The work of the Committee will then be complete (provided no appeals are made; see 5, below). This letter will provide a description of the elements of the written summary, including performance in each area in relation to expectations, information on progress toward tenure/promotion, suggested strategies for improvement or renewal, etc. This letter will also provide the faculty member with an opportunity to meet with the Chair to discuss the evaluation in person. 

Between March 15 and April 1, the Chair will be available to meet with each faculty member as necessary to discuss the evaluation: 

• If a faculty member does not wish to meet with the Chair, and the Chair concurs, the faculty member will provide the Chair with a brief letter to that effect within ten days of receipt of the evaluation; the letter will be placed in the faculty member's personnel file. 
• If a faculty member does not wish to meet with the Chair, and the Chair does not concur, a statement explaining the Chair's non-concurrence will be issued to the faculty member and placed in the faculty member's personnel file. 
• If a faculty member meets with the Chair to discuss performance, then the Chair will provide that faculty member with a written summary of their meeting and place the summary in the faculty member's personnel file. 
• By April 1, all due processes at the Department level will be complete. 
• The work and discussions of the Committee are strictly confidential.

5. Post-tenure Review and Integration into the Annual Evaluation Process 

This section includes information for faculty members undergoing Post-tenure Review. 

• The committee report will be considered as part of the annual evaluation process and the chair of SGES will discuss the review with the faculty member in conjunction with that process. This discussion should concentrate on the future professional development of the faculty member with an aim toward enhancing meritorious work and improving less satisfactory performance, including adoption of a performance improvement plan, if necessary. Any action on the review that is within the scope of the Faculty Evaluation Policy must be taken under that policy. 
• The Post-tenure Review committee will provide a copy of their report to the faculty member, who may submit a written response for inclusion in the post-tenure review file before it is forwarded to the chair for their review. If the chair agrees with the report, they will indicate that agreement in writing to the faculty member and place a copy in the post-tenure review file. If the chair disagrees with the committee’s evaluation, they shall explain the reasons for any disagreement in writing, with a copy to the faculty member and the committee. 
• Unit procedures for ensuring that as part of the annual evaluation process, results of the post-tenure review assessment are used to determine annual evaluation outcomes are outlined below in #6.

Additional information can be found in the Unit’s Post-tenure Review Policy.

6. Outcomes of the Annual Performance Evaluation 

The evaluation process of the Department of Slavic, German, and Eurasian Studies, seen in all its aspects, yields multiple outcomes. It acknowledges faculty accomplishments or shortcomings and makes them matters of record. It initiates discussions that influence the planning of both individual career development and unit evolution. It assists in the identification of opportunities for faculty improvement and renewal. It provides annual as well as cumulative data for merit-salary recommendations, sabbatical-leave and grant applications, tenure and promotion decisions, post-tenure review, and reassignments of responsibilities. And it provides documentation that may be used, at extremes, in support of either recognition or dismissal. Furthermore, an additional outcome of the evaluation in process is the recommendation for awarding merit. When the Chair receives the merit budget allocation from the College, they: 

• Subtract 2% of the regular merit pool; 
• Divide the remaining allocation by the total number of points awarded to all faculty members, assigning corresponding merit increases to each faculty member on the basis of those points (merit allocation is thus tied to points achieved, not to percentages of existing salary); 
• Divide the number of bonuses awarded into the remaining 2% of the dollar amount of the Department's annual merit allocation and assigns those funds to those faculty members who received bonuses. The Chair sends forwards those amounts as recommendations to the College for faculty merit allocations when the College calls for them.

Procedures for developing performance improvement plans 

If the chair ascertains that a faculty member's performance seems to be failing to meet academic responsibilities, the administrator and the faculty member shall develop a written plan of methods to improve the faculty member's performance. The plan may include appropriate provisions for faculty development, such as campus opportunities for faculty continued renewal and development, or for other appropriate interventions. The chairperson may call upon the University administration for assistance in constructing such a plan, including provision for additional resources, where needed. A faculty member may reject any plan recommended to aid performance levels, but the faculty member must understand that a sustained overall failure to meet academic responsibilities is a basis for dismissal.

Procedures for addressing failure to meet academic responsibilities 

Appeal of the Evaluation Process. Faculty may appeal the results of their evaluation. 
 

Step One: Following receipt of the letter conveying the result of the Evaluation Committee's deliberations, faculty members who wish to appeal must respond in writing, either declining to meet with the Chair or asking to meet with the Chair. 

Step Two: Appealing faculty members may seek clarification from the Chair informally and terminate the appeal at that point. 

Step Three: Faculty members may -- in a letter to the Chair dated not later than April 1 -- request and always be granted a meeting with the full Evaluation Committee. 
 

At the meeting the appealing faculty member must introduce new information for consideration and may present his/her views of the evaluation.

The meeting is not convened for the purpose of challenging Committee decisions, thus the appealing faculty member may not demand justification of the Committee decisions. Rather, the meeting is held to provide any additional information to the evaluation process. The Committee may choose to ask questions of the individual, or not. Following such a meeting, the Committee will compose and the concerned individual will receive a written response indicating the Committee's recommended action following from the meeting. 

If a faculty member has been informed that his/her performance fails to meet academic responsibilities, the faculty member may request a review by a faculty committee designated to hear such matters in the College. The review committee will issue a non-binding recommendation on the appropriateness of this conclusion to the unit administrator. The administrator may change the evaluation after receiving the committee's decision, or may choose not to do so. In any event, the report of the committee will become a permanent part of the faculty member's personnel file within the academic unit and shall be available to the faculty member. 

Department chairs shall consult annually with the dean, and the dean shall consult annually with the Provost on the progress of any faculty member who fails within this category of failure to meet academic responsibilities.

Sustained failure to meet performance expectations 

Based upon the judgment that there has been a sustained failure to meet academic responsibilities, the Dean may recommend to the Provost that a tenured faculty member be dismissed. In making this determination, the Dean shall consider the nature of the failure to meet academic responsibilities, the reason or reasons for this failure, the number of years that the faculty member has failed to meet academic responsibilities, the level of discernible improvement in the faculty member's performance after being notified of any failure in performance, and the extent to which the faculty member has complied with the terms of any plan developed to improve the faculty member's performance. The Provost will review the case and, if the Provost agrees with the Dean's recommendation, the Provost will recommend to the Chancellor that the faculty member be dismissed. If the Chancellor agrees and recommends dismissal, this recommendation will go to the Faculty Rights Board. 

Should any recommendation to dismiss be brought against a tenured faculty member based exclusively or in part on grounds of sustained failure to meet academic responsibilities, both the report(s) of the review committee(s), the annual written evaluation(s) of the unit administrator concerning the faculty member, any outside evaluations, and any germane written response by the faculty member to the charges shall be made available to the Faculty Rights Board.

7. Faculty Development Initiatives 

• Mentoring: The Chair assigns to all new faculty members an official intra-departmental mentor and an intra-departmental mentor, in accordance with University Regulations. Faculty mentors assist the new colleague in learning the culture of the institution and the department, the College, and University; meeting new colleagues; seeking professional development; and advancing appropriately toward Progress toward Tenure and promotion and/or tenure reviews. 
• “Faculty development” encourages the use of all opportunities, intra- and extra-institutional, to acquire knowledge and skills that allow faculty to grow professionally and to perform at a higher level of proficiency -- in research, teaching/advising, and service. 
• All faculty members are encouraged to engage in developmental activities appropriate to their career stage. 
• Developmental activities include (but are not limited to):

 

• New Faculty Research Grants;
• Teaching enhancement activities sponsored by the Center for Teaching Excellence, Hall Center, International Programs, and professional organizations; 
• Awards for faculty travel to conferences in the U.S. and abroad; 
• Research grant funding, internal (Hall Center) and external (Fulbright, IREX, ACLS, Guggenheim, NEH, etc.); 
• Sabbatical leave and Keeler intra-university fellowships; 
• Senior Staff Administrative Fellows program; (administrative training); 
• Technology training and workshops;
• International teaching and research exchanges; 
• Teaching, academic, and administrative workshops, and; 
• Conferences; special lectures; other suitable opportunities for professional development

 

• Research Intensive Semesters (RIS): CLAS offers all junior faculty members in good standing a reduced teaching responsibility at some point during the faculty member’s pretenure employment. Faculty members will be released from classroom teaching duties for up to one semester, depending upon the relevant departmental teaching expectations, and will be expected to concentrate on research intensive activities. Faculty members are eligible for a research intensive semester assignment up to and including the spring semester before their publication dossiers are sent out to external reviewers in June, with the latest possible Research Intensive Semester (RIS) assignment typically being the second semester of the fifth year. Faculty members in good standing who have stopped their tenure clock remain eligible for a RIS assignment. The actual decision of which year/semester the individual is assigned a research intensive semester will be made in consultation with the department chair. Note that paid leaves and fellowships do not take the place of a RIS. Once the chair approves the RIS for the junior faculty member, the details concerning the RIS should be confirmed to the faculty member in writing and documented in their personnel file. The chair also provides a copy of this authorization to the College Dean’s Office so that RIS data can be tracked. Faculty members who are granted a RIS are expected to continue to meet their usual duties regarding departmental advising and other service activities.