Training for Reviewers Fall 2017 Faculty Evaluation Training for Reviewers Fall 2017

Requirement for Evaluator Training The UAA Faculty Policies and Procedures specify that all reviewers must attend a training session “if there have been substantive changes in policy since their last training.” The new UAFT Contract dated January 1, 2015 was considered a “substantive change” with multiple changes in process and file contents, so all evaluators needed to be retrained in either 2015, 2016 or 2017.

Notable recent changes The UAA Faculty Evaluation Guidelines (FEGs) are now called the Faculty Evaluation Policies and Procedures (FEPPs) as of Spring 2016 2016 cover sheets are no longer on colored paper E-Portfolio files have been piloted in 2015 and 2016, with improvements each year Rules have changed regarding missing or additional material/place holders – see slide below

Agenda Overview of process Evaluation Criteria File Contents Review Procedures

Determination of Process Levels of Authority: Applicable CBA procedures BoR Policy & Regulations UAA Policies & Procedures Unit Guidelines criteria

Determination of Process Faculty Collective Bargaining Agreements: Procedures for Fall 2017 remain unchanged. Potential changes with new CBA for UNAC to be implemented Fall 2018. UAFT faculty at Community Campuses are reviewed first by the Campus Director Different dates for submission & review of files UNAC: September 10 UAFT: September 15

Sequence of Reviews & Deadlines Procedures are the same whether faculty are using old or new guidelines See flowcharts (handouts) Also posted on Faculty Services web page: http://www.uaa.alaska.edu/facultyservices/ tenure/index.cfm

Dean, director, or designee* Dean, director, or designee Reviews  UAFT* + New FEPPs UNAC + Old or New FEPPs Annual Review Dean, director, or designee* Dean, director, or designee 4th-yr comprehensive College Peer Review * Dean UFEC  Provost College Peer Review UFEC Provost (beyond only by faculty request) Tenure & Promotion to Associate College Peer Review * Chancellor Promotion to Professor Comprehensive post-tenure review Dean , director, or designee * Beyond by request if unsatisfactory Beyond if unsatisfactory * For community campus faculty, campus director provides the first level of review.

Faculty Evaluation (UNAC only) Choice between Old and New Applicable guidelines noted and signed on coversheet Use old unit guidelines with old UAA guidelines (Chapter III Faculty Handbook) Use new unit guidelines with new UAA guidelines (new FEGs) Chart clarifying applicable procedures & options: Faculty Services Evaluation Page: https://www.uaa.alaska.edu/academics/faculty-services/faculty-evaluation/faculty-evaluation-process-dates.cshtml

Evaluation Criteria

Focus of Evaluation Fulfillment of Workload Agreements Extent of professional growth and development Prospects for continued professional growth and development Changes or improvements required for tenure, promotion, and continued professional growth. Processes available to assist in improving performance.

Key Terms Reviews are unambiguous and have the greatest impact if judgments are expressed in the language of the Faculty Evaluation Policies & Procedures (FEPPs). Faculty preparing for review should know the descriptors for performance at their current rank, and the next rank, if applicable. Faculty are advised to use the vocabulary of the FEPPs in their self-evaluations. Reviewers should use key terms in their Findings or Conclusions.

Key Terms for Faculty Evaluation Old Policies Assistant Professor level: potential for success Tenure & Promotion to Associate: success Promotion to Professor: exemplary in each area of the workload

New FEPPs “success”  “effectiveness” Emphasis on “sustained” or “continuing” performance Evidence of quality & significance impact leadership recognition from peers or community external to UAA marked strength in at least one area of workload

Key Terms for Faculty Evaluation New FEPPs Assistant Professor: effectiveness in each area of workload; promise of continuing achievement Tenure & Promotion to Associate: sustained record of effectiveness; emerging recognition Promotion to Professor: sustained excellence; leadership; external recognition Marked strength in one area of the workload.

Benchmarks & Criteria – new FEPPs (handouts)

Benchmarks & Criteria – new FEPPs (handouts)

Review Files

Annual Reviews (Dean or Designee) Current CV Annual Activity Report form Summary of each area of workload Teaching Service Research/Creative Activity (if applicable) Self-evaluation Other materials at the discretion of the faculty member (more information, more feedback)

Annual Reviews (Dean or Designee) Evaluation of performance based upon the allocation of effort specified in the approved Workload Agreement. Approved Workload = signed by the dean (or designee). Dean’s response to Annual Activity Reports becomes part of the comprehensive file.

Comprehensive (multi-year) Reviews Fourth-year Comprehensive Review Tenure and/or Promotion Comprehensive Post-tenure Review

Composition of Comprehensive Files UNAC and UAFT are mostly similar with respect to the contents of a comprehensive review file, with a few differences. Both CBAs provide a list of required documents, with provision for materials specified by MAU or unit guidelines or added at the discretion of faculty.

Comprehensive Review Files UAA Reviews, both UNAC and UAFT Current CV All workload agreements for period under review. Annual Activity Reports for all years in the period under review and responses from the Dean (or designee) as applicable. Summary teaching evaluations for period under review. Representative syllabus for each course taught. Findings and recommendations from most recent comprehensive review (if applicable).

Comprehensive Files (cont.) Self-evaluation if feedback from dean, director, or designee has noted areas for improvement, a summary of progress in addressing those areas must be included. Verification of degrees, certificates, or licenses Initial letter of appointment (if needed to document prior years of service) Other material at faculty member’s discretion.

Comprehensive File (UNAC only) A cumulative Activity Report summarizing each area of the workload. For tenure and/or promotion, external review letters: 2 reviewers proposed by faculty and up to 2 reviewers proposed by dean.

UNAC: External Reviewers External = outside of the UA system Dean’s office requests and receives letters from faculty member’s selected reviewers and Dean’s selected reviewers. Letters received are provided to faculty member on September 8 for inclusion in the file. Dean’s office documents for the file how many requested and how many received. Letters are labeled to indicate whether reviewer was selected by faculty or dean.

Comprehensive File (UAFT only) For tenure and/or promotion, letters of support.

Post-Tenure Review Both UNAC and UAFT Assesses whether performance continues to meet expectations. Performance is satisfactory if it meets standards for the faculty member’s current rank. Evaluation of progress toward promotion, if applicable, is a separate judgment with separate feedback. No external reviews or letters of support

IDEA results As of Fall 2015, IDEA surveys are no longer generated for classes with 10 or fewer students. Other evaluation instruments may/should be used instead. Faculty are no longer required to get notices from Faculty Services about classes without IDEA results. Faculty should document their classes and note which ones have results and which do not, due to low enrollment or low response rates.

Missing Documents If a document is expected but has not arrived by the date of submission (for example, a letter from an external reviewer), a statement identifying the document and the expected arrival may be inserted in the file and the document added at the time a response is due. Additional material submitted with responses is placed with the response at the front of the file. Levels of review already completed do not consider new material. File continues forward.

Committee Procedures Conflicts of interest Disclosures of conflicts and committee decisions on recusal recorded in findings and recommendations Faculty under review may request recusal Provost resolves differences Open or closed meetings Committees may determine whether discussions will be open or closed to the public and the candidate. Votes shall be closed to the public and the candidate.

Committee Procedures Peer reviews are signed by the chair on behalf of the committee Reviewers may not move, remove, retain, or copy any portion of the file. The file review process must be conducted with due diligence to maintain the confidentiality of the candidate and the committee’s deliberations.