| |
 |
Handbook
Section E
EVALUATION
OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND TEACHING FACULTY
1.
Evaluation Process for Administrative Faculty
Administrative
faculty, like teaching faculty, must be evaluated periodically to
determine administrative effectiveness, recognize past accomplishments,
and determine future goals and professional development. The following
guidelines provide a structure within which administrative faculty
and their supervisors shall conduct such evaluations.
The
initial 90-day, the annual, and the periodic reviews described below
shall focus on the four criteria for appointment and evaluation
for administrative faculty as described earlier in the Handbook:
administrative effectiveness, quality of mind, contributions to
the community, and institutional fit.
a.
Initial Ninety Day Review
Each
new administrative faculty member shall have a formal meeting
with the supervisor at or around the end of the first 90 days
of work at Earlham College. The meeting shall focus on the
faculty member’s initial experiences, questions, and suggestions
about needed areas of training or other aids to effectiveness,
and on the strengths of and areas needing improvement in the
faculty member’s performance.
b.
Annual Reviews
Each
year, administrative faculty shall submit written self-evaluations,
using the form found in the Procedures section of this document,
to their immediate supervisors no later than February 1st.
The self-evaluation provides supervisors with faculty members’ thoughts
and reflections on their performance as measured by the four
criteria for evaluation. Candor and realism are important qualities
of these self-evaluations. After a meeting between the administrative
faculty member and the supervisor, in which this self-evaluation
is discussed, the supervisor shall complete the summary evaluation
form, found in the Procedures section of this document, and
shall share it with the faculty member. Copies of these documents
shall be submitted to the President’s office no later
than March 1st.
c.
Periodic Reviews
Administrative
faculty members shall have a more extensive review at least
each five years of their employment. This review shall take
the place of the annual review for that year. The supervisor
and the faculty member shall share responsibility for remembering
to accomplish this.
The
periodic review shall proceed as follows:
(1)
The faculty member and supervisor shall meet no later than
November 1st to agree on a small review committee that shall
oversee the review. Normally, this committee will be composed
of at least two but not more than three persons, and may
include teaching and/or administrative faculty.(2) The review
committee shall meet with the faculty member being evaluated
to learn his or her expectations for the review, and to decide
on an appropriate procedure. The review committee shall meet
with the supervisor to understand any expectations the supervisor
has for the review.
(3)
The faculty member shall submit a written self-evaluation
no later than December 1st. The self-evaluation shall include
the annual review self-evaluation form found in the Procedures
section of this Handbook, and whatever additional narrative
is appropriate reflecting on the years covered by the review.
(4)
The review committee shall gather information from “clients”,
peers, and those who report to the faculty member being evaluated.
These interviews may be in person or by phone, involving
one or more members of the review committee, or they may
be requests for written information. The interviews may be
open-ended or structured by a set of specific questions.
In addition to the information particularly sought in step
#2, when seeking input the review committee shall be attentive
to the elements in the annual review self-evaluation form.
(5)
The review committee shall interview the faculty member and
reflect on the self-evaluation, and discuss areas of strengths
and concerns that are emerging from their information-gathering
process.
(6)
The review committee shall write a report to be shared with
the faculty member and supervisor no later than March 1st.
(7)
The review shall conclude with a conversation between the
supervisor and the faculty member no later than March 31st.
The supervisor shall write a summary of this conversation,
which shall be shared with the faculty member.
(8)
The supervisor shall forward the review committee’s
written report, the supervisor’s summary, and the faculty
member’s self-evaluation to the President’s Office
for the faculty member’s personnel file.
2.
Evaluation process for Teaching Faculty Contract Renewal and for
Tenure Recommendations
a.
Process Summary
Teachers
appointed to full-time tenure track positions should expect
to be evaluated for contract renewal in their second year of
teaching (Fall Semester) and again in their fourth year of
teaching (Spring Semester). Tenure decisions are normally made
during the Spring semester of one’s sixth year of employment.
(For a definition of tenure, see Handbook
Section I, for the review schedule for shared appointments;
see Handbook
Section J.
Faculty
Affairs Committee, (FAC) and Student Faculty Affairs Committee
(SFAC) evaluate the files of tenure track appointments during
the second, fourth and (finally) sixth year of a colleague’s
employment with the College. FAC and SFAC attempt to formulate
and make a consensus recommendation to the President based
on the candidate’s file.
The
FAC recommendation in its finished form is a written “minute” describing
the committee’s reasons for its recommendation. This minute
is written after FAC and SFAC have met and sought consensus
on a file, but is written and approved by FAC only. A copy
of the FAC minute is always shared with the faculty member.
Minutes from previous evaluation processes become part of the
faculty member’s future evaluation files.
In
preparing an evaluation file, a faculty member is assigned
to a current member of FAC who acts as a liaison throughout
the evaluation process. The FAC liaison is not a partisan or
an advocate for the faculty member but a facilitator to the
faculty member as he or she makes choices in constituting an
evaluation file.
b.
File Preparation
Faculty
members up for review should construct their files in a way
that provides a comprehensive view of their work for FAC, SFAC,
and the President to consider in their assessments. The committees
will be able to provide the most productive feedback and make
the wisest recommendations when they are presented with the
clearest possible picture of the faculty member’s work
in relation to the four criteria.
The
committees do not expect “perfect files” with no
criticism or negative student comments. Rather, they look especially
for patterns of evidence of strengths and needs for improvement,
with special attention to the perceptiveness of the faculty
member’s own reflections on one’s work and the responses
of others to it.
A
few elements of an evaluation file are required for all evaluations.
But faculty members also have considerable choice about what
does and does not become part of the file.
A
self-evaluation, a current vita, a departmental, and where
relevant a program evaluation, student course evaluations,
selected course materials, and feedback from advisees, are
all required elements of any file and are described more fully
below:
Once
the faculty member has determined what shall be in the evaluation
file, the liaison will move the process along by asking the
Dean’s secretary to solicit letters as requested by the
candidate. It is not the candidate’s responsibility to
solicit letters for his or her file. No unsolicited letters
will be admitted to the faculty member’s file anytime
during the process without the faculty member’s permission.
An
example of the sheet a faculty member and his or her liaison
use when constructing a file is included in the policies and
administrative procedures part of this document.
(1)
Open and Closed Files
The
College believes it should be up to the faculty member to
choose to have an open or closed file. No file, whether open
or closed, will be a perfect reflection of a faculty member’s
work. FAC and SFAC strive to read all files carefully and
thoroughly regardless of their designation. Some people have
strong preferences for open files, others for closed, and
whether to have an open or closed file is for many a vexed
question. Most of the evidence in a file is already
available to a faculty member (teaching evaluations, self evaluation, [often]
department and program letters). Thus, what is most directly at issue in
the decision to have a closed or open file is the faculty member’s
ability to read letters from colleagues and students that have not otherwise
been shared.
Student
and colleague letters may be affected by knowing the file
is open or closed, or they may be unaffected. It they are
affected, there is no clear way to predict what the effect
will be. Some letters may be more open, more pointed, more
honest in a closed file. On the other hand, some letters
may be more thoughtful, thorough, and less prone to generalizations
in an open file. Some argue that colleagues and students
should be able to write accurate and complete letters whether
the file is open or closed; others claim this is unrealistic
in a close-knit community like Earlham. Some faculty members
find it important to see the evidence in their file to see
if the judgment of the committees and FAC minute accord with
their own reading of the file, and to learn from the assessments
of their colleagues and the students. Others argue that a
faculty member up for review may be unduly upset or hurt
by reading criticisms in his or her file and should give
students and colleagues the freedom to write without worrying
about the faculty member’s reaction
It
is finally up to faculty members themselves to choose whether
their files are open or closed. The letter requesting contributions
to a file, sent by the Dean’s Office to those persons
identified by the faculty member, indicates whether the file
will be open or closed to the faculty member.
(2)
Building the File
(a)
Self-Evaluation
Each
faculty member up for review must submit a written self-evaluation
to FAC/SFAC. The self evaluation provides FAC and SFAC
with faculty members’ thoughts and reflections on
their performance as measured by the four criteria for
evaluation. In addition, self-evaluations allow faculty
members to write more generally about their intellectual
interests and plans and about pedagogical issues that go
beyond any particular course. In particular, it is useful
for FAC and SFAC to hear directly from faculty members
(though not necessarily in great length) about their intellectual
and academic pursuits in a way accessible for non-specialists.
Such
a presentation gives FAC and SFAC information about quality
of mind beyond a listing of professional accomplishments
and publications, though the latter is important as well.
Candor
and realism are important qualities of these self-evaluations,
especially with regard to teaching and working with colleagues.
The committees do not expect that there will have been
no challenges or failures. Rather, the committees are particularly
interested in seeing the way faculty members respond to
and evaluate patterns of feedback from students and colleagues.
Finally,
faculty members should say something about their future
development and aspirations.
(b)
Department and Program Evaluation(s)
Faculty
members will specify whether evaluations from their departments
are to be in the form of a consensus letter or separate
letters from each member of the department. Evaluations
from members of programs to which the candidate makes integral
contributions (not simply cross-listing a course) also
should be included in the file. The exact nature of the
program’s assessment (e.g. a single letter from a
faculty member in the program vs. a consensus letter from
all members) should be appropriate to the contributions
the faculty member makes to the program.
The
most informative department and program letters provide
honest evaluations of the faculty member with respect to
the four criteria, including ways in which the faculty
member fits into a department or program and its anticipated
future.
Assessments
by departments and programs based on clear and direct evidence
of a faculty member’s performance, such as class observations,
team teaching, and department and program collaborations
are most convincing. FAC and SFAC rely heavily on these
components in assessing both the faculty member’s
quality of mind and specific fit of his or her abilities
and interests with curricular and other needs. The
latter issue of fit is especially important for departments to address
when the faculty member is filling the last open tenurable position in
the department.
Departments
and programs are encouraged to share assessments with the
faculty member being reviewed to encourage, support, guide,
and advise.
(c)
Student Course Evaluations
All
teaching faculty are encourage to have their courses evaluated
by students on a regular basis. During the probationary
period preceding a tenure decision, teaching faculty must
make available to FAC and SFAC all student responses to
their teaching in all of the courses they have taught,
(on and off campus) since their last evaluation. Faculty
members should keep all evaluations; a faculty member may
wish to submit, and FAC may request, evaluations from courses
prior to the last evaluation. In addition, letters from
a sampling of students for whom the faculty member has
been an advisor should be included in the file.
Earlham
provides faculty members with a choice between the McKeachie
evaluation form, and an “in house” evaluation
form. Examples of both are included in this document in
the Policy and Administrative Procedures section. Faculty
members who wish to use a different form may do so with
the advance approval of the Academic Dean.
Course
evaluations are sent to the Registrar’s Office where
a record is made of which courses have been evaluated,
the enrollment numbers for each course and the number of
evaluations returned by students in the course. Sets of
evaluations are then returned to teaching faculty. Faculty members should
keep all their course evaluations and are responsible for seeing that
evaluations are made available to FAC as part of their renewal and tenure
files.
(d)
Course Materials
Faculty
members should include syllabi/course descriptions for
their courses. In addition to the required syllabi, faculty
members should also select additional course material (e.g.
handouts, discussion questions, and writing, research and
laboratory assignments) as appropriate.
(e)
Colleague and Student Letters
Faculty
members up for review are encouraged to include letters
written by Earlham colleagues and students. Some people
choose to include letters from persons at other institutions.
(f)
Class Interviews
Occasionally people request that students in one or more of their courses
be interviewed by a member or members of FAC. If this is done, a written
record of the FAC members’ interview with the class or classes will
be part of the faculty members’ file.
(g)
Optional Materials
Other
material or information may be included, as suggested by
the faculty member. Examples might be copies of published
articles, essays, books, or tapes of music or theater performances.
(h)
Committee-requested information
FAC
may find it desirable to request elaboration from the faculty
members or a referee or to request that a letter be sent
by a person familiar with the faculty member’s work,
but not asked by the faculty member to write. If a letter
is desired, the faculty member will be consulted about
the
request. The committee will identify the concerns leading to the request
and invite the faculty member to respond. If the faculty member refuses
the request, FAC expects that an explanatory letter will be provided.
c.
Decision Sequence
The
foregoing evaluation material will be gathered by the Academic
Dean’s Office. These materials will be considered by the
President, the Faculty Affairs Committee, and the Student Faculty
Affairs Committee. They will strive to make a recommendation
by consensus. (See also E.2 for more about
this process.)
When
the committees and the department or program reach opposite
recommendations, the department or program may request a meeting
to hear and respond to the reasons for the committees’ recommendation.
If
the assessment by the committees and the President of the teaching
effectiveness of the faculty member differs critically from
that of the department, and if the department has not already
studied the evaluations [in reaching its recommendation], then
the faculty member may permit the convenor of the department
(or other appropriate person chosen with the mutual consent
of the department and the committees and the President) to
have access to the course evaluation forms. If the representative
strongly disagrees with the committee’s interpretation
of the student course evaluations, he or she may request that
the recommendation be reconsidered.
Final
responsibility for the decision rests with the President and
Board of Trustees but with the advice, consultation, and seeking
of consensus with the Faculty Affairs Committee and Student
Faculty Affairs Committee.
d.
Notification
Faculty
Affairs Committee will minute in writing its recommendations
and reasons or its reasons for being unable to reach consensus
A copy of this minute will be given to the candidate. If FAC
and the President disagree, FAC will minute its own recommendation
and reasons and will communicate this to the faculty member.
Following
the evaluation process for contract renewal preceding consideration
for tenure (usually during one’s fourth year at Earlham),
the faculty member will be informed of any questions which
appear at that time to be relevant to the tenure decision.
The Academic Dean will meet with the faculty member to discuss the minute.
3.
Evaluations of the Teaching of Earlham Administrative Faculty
Who also Teach
Many
administrative faculty teach either regularly or on an occasional
basis, and these faculty make important contributions to our educational
program, even though teaching is not a formal part of their position
description.
Faculty
Affairs Committee undertakes the responsibility of reviewing the
teaching of administrative faculty, not in order to arrive at a
recommendation concerning contract renewal, but to provide a chance
for collegial feedback. The normal cycle for review is every three
years, or every five courses, whichever is least frequent. After
one or more reviews on this cycle, the committee and faculty member
may agree on another cycle better suited to the case.
The
general format for collecting information for the file and for evaluation
follows the pattern described for full-time teaching faculty in
this section. Because fewer total courses are being considered,
the quantity of material requested may be scaled back, and a subset
of Faculty Affairs Committee, with or without Student Faculty Affairs
Committee, may conduct the review.
Faculty
Affairs Committee will send an evaluation minute to the faculty
member and the faculty member’s supervisor. A meeting of the
faculty member and the Academic Dean concludes the process.
4.
Evaluation of the Teaching of Coaches
Most
coaches teach one or more credit-bearing courses. Coaches also participate
in the Wellness Program and in the offering of non-credit courses
(“activity classes”). They also teach in many ways as
they coach, and even as they recruit and represent the College.
Coaches’ teaching
is reviewed in the third year, initially. After the first review,
a timetable for subsequent reviews is established by the Academic
Dean in consultation with Faculty Affairs Committee.
The
general format for collecting information for the file and for evaluation
follows the pattern described for full-time teaching faculty in
this section. Because coaching is itself teaching, coaches should
submit student evaluations of their experience in sports, in addition
to the student evaluations of their courses. The forms used for
student evaluation of varsity sports is different from that used
for courses.
Though
the distinction is hard to make in practice, at times, it should
be kept in mind that the evaluation here described is only of the
coaches’ teaching. They are evaluated yearly according to the
procedures in this section for administrative faculty, though the
forms for this evaluation may be modified to better reflect their
special responsibilities.
Although
evaluations of coaches are not directly for the purpose of contract
renewal recommendations, the quality of coaches’ teaching is
an important factor in judging their overall performance. Faculty
Affairs Committee sends an evaluation minute to the faculty member,
the Athletic Director, The Dean of Student Development, and the
President. A meeting of the faculty member and the Academic Dean
concludes the review process.
5.
Evaluation of Adjunct Faculty
Continuing
adjunct faculty and temporary adjunct faculty (see
handbook section K for definitions of these roles) are evaluated
according to the general guidelines for full-time teaching faculty
outlined in this section of the handbook. Evaluations are scheduled
for each three years or each five courses, whichever is least frequent.
After the first such evaluation, the Academic Dean in consultation
with Faculty Affairs Committee may establish a different cycle if
one is more appropriate to an individual circumstance.
6.
Evaluation of Visiting Faculty
From
time to time, visiting faculty may stay at Earlham for more than
a year. In such cases, Faculty Affairs Committee may ask them if
they wish to be evaluated using procedures analogous to those for
full-time teaching faculty. In such cases, the evaluation is for
the purpose of providing useful feedback, and a minute of evaluation
that can be used, if the faculty member wishes, in applying for
positions elsewhere. Conducting such an evaluation is not for contract
renewal, and no further position at Earlham is thereby being offered
or assumed. Faculty Affairs Committee takes account of its workload
in deciding whether these evaluations can be offered. They are not
guaranteed. Evaluation of visiting faculty is required if the faculty
member is being considered for an additional teaching assignment.
(For a description
of Visiting Appointments, see section O of this handbook). |
|
