1. Training for Reviewers Fall 2017
Faculty Evaluation
Training for Reviewers
Fall 2017

2. 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.

3. 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

4. Agenda Overview of process Evaluation Criteria File Contents
Review Procedures

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

6. 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

7. 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:
tenure/index.cfm

8. 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.

9. 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:

11. Evaluation Criteria

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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.

17. Benchmarks & Criteria – new FEPPs (handouts)

18. Benchmarks & Criteria – new FEPPs (handouts)

19. Review Files

20. 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)

21. 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.

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

23. 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.

24. 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).

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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.

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

29. 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

30. 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.

31. 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.

32. 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.

33. 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.