E.2 University of
Houston-Victoria Tenure Procedures
2.1 Granting of Tenure
Tenure may be granted
by the Chancellor after all the following steps have been
completed:
1. Review by the
Dean of the candidate’s school;
2. Review by three
external reviewers;
3. Review by the
Promotion and Tenure Committee or the Faculty Council;
4. Review by the
Provost; and
5. Recommendation
by the President.
2.2 Consideration for Tenure
Consideration for
tenure proceeds as follows:
1. A faculty
member who is eligible and who wishes to be a candidate for
tenure submits to the School Dean a request for tenure
consideration, along with supporting evidence, by August 1.
2. The faculty
candidate will forward a list of prospective external reviewers,
subject to approval of the Dean, to evaluate the candidate's
research, publications and/or creative activities. The
external reviewers must be scholars who are not former teachers,
collaborators, mentors, personal friends or relatives of the
candidate. If a faculty member does not recommend external
reviewers the Dean will work with the faculty in the discipline
to identify potential external reviewers.
This process will be phased
in over a three year period. In 2007, there will be at
least one external reviewer. In 2008, at least two
external reviewers and in 2009 at least three external reviewers
will be included in the faculty member's portfolio.
UHV requires external evaluators be at the rank of Associate
Professor or Professor and be tenured at their respective
institutions to evaluate candidates seeking tenure and the rank
of Associate Professor. Faculty going from associate to full
professor must be evaluated by full professors.
The Dean contacts the
reviewers and sends them the faculty vita and publications by
August 15. The external reviewers are asked to assess the
candidate's contributions to the profession in the areas of
research, scholarship, publications and/or other creative
activities. External reviewers will
-
evaluate the candidate's
record as a scholar and comment on his or her potential for
continued productivity; and
-
confirm an emerging
professional reputation for promotion to associate professor
and an emerging national reputation for promotion to full
professor.
The external reviews should
be in letter format and are due to the Dean by
September 15. All external reviews will be included with
the candidate's portfolio.
3. Candidates
may add supporting material unavailable at earlier states of
evaluation until September 15*.
4.
The Dean
reviews the evidence and informs the candidate of the Dean's
recommendation by October 15.* (Dean may use an advisory
committee of tenured members or seek the advice of tenured
members of the school, as determined by school policy).
5. The Dean forwards the Dean's and the external
reviewer's evaluations with written justification to the
Promotion and Tenure Committee and to the Provost by October
31*.
6. The committee
reviews the evidence, including the Dean’s recommendation, and
informs the candidate of its recommendation by December 15*.
7. The committee
forwards its recommendation with written justification to the
Provost, providing copies to the Dean and candidate, by January
31*.
8. The Provost
reviews the evidence and recommendations submitted and informs
the candidate of the Provost’s recommendation by February 15*.
9. The Provost
forwards the Provost’s recommendation to the President with
written justification, providing copies to the candidate, Dean,
and committee, by February 28*.
*First working day thereafter.
Revised: August 2007
Effective: August 2007
2.3 Withdrawal and Deferral
Procedures
Candidates may end the
review procedures at any point prior to the Provost’s
recommendation to the President by submitting a written withdrawal
of their request. Faculty members who have been credited with
time toward tenure consideration at hire may later request that
the credit be rescinded and that consideration be deferred up to
the number of probationary years normally allowed. Such requests
must be in writing to the Dean prior to the beginning of the fall
semester in which consideration was scheduled to occur. Tenure
consideration cannot be deferred beyond the time limit set by the
Board of Regents.
Updated: Fall 2004
2.4 Appeal Procedure
When a negative
recommendation on conferring tenure or promotion has first been
reached, the faculty member involved shall be informed immediately
of that recommendation in writing by the person or committee
initiating the recommendation. If the faculty member so requests,
the members shall be advised of the reasons for the recommendation
and shall have seven calendar days to request reconsideration and
an opportunity to be heard informally before the recommendation is
forwarded. A faculty member requesting reconsideration shall
furnish the Dean or committee with a written statement of the
basis of the request and with whatever further evidence the
faculty member believes to be relevant. During the
reconsideration, the faculty member shall have the opportunity to
rebut any information injurious to the member’s case. Indication
that the case was reconsidered, any additional materials provided,
and the final recommendation following reconsideration shall be
forwarded to the next stage of evaluation.
2.5 Review and Renewal of
Non-Tenured Faculty
See Section E-11 for
summary of expectations of all faculty.
In 1997-98 mandatory
third-year reviews were approved for probationary, tenure-track
assistant professors, with an implementation date of spring 2000
for faculty hired in 1997-98 and thereafter.
Annual Renewal
Decisions:
1. General
conditions related to renewal/non-renewal of probationary
appointments are noted in the initial letter of appointment and
in the Faculty Manual.
2. Any years
granted toward tenure consideration at the time of hire do not
affect the renewal deadlines for new tenure-track faculty
members, even if they have previously served in a visiting
capacity.
3.
Renewal/non-renewal notification of all first-year and
second-year probationary faculty will be provided prior to the
established deadlines of March 1 and December 15, respectively,
and may include review of performance, as well as any other
relevant consideration. Note that the December deadline may
preclude full consideration of the fall semester’s teaching
performance.
4. Probationary
faculty members are responsible for submitting any required or
relevant material for renewal consideration by time the School
Dean has indicated or at least two weeks in advance of the
Dean’s deadline, normally February 15 for first-year
appointments and November 30 for second-year ones.
5. Following a
member’s second year of service, annual performance evaluations
will take place as scheduled each spring, with notice of
renewal/non-renewal due by May 31. In case of non-renewal, the
faculty member would still have the next academic year to go on
his or her contract. A second-year faculty member renewed for
his or her third year in December will be reviewed again in May
for renewal or non-renewal for his or her fourth year.
6.
Renewal/non-renewal recommendations, as well as performance
evaluations, are shared with the faculty member, who will have
opportunity for a conference with the School Dean.
Updated:
Summer 2004
Requests for
Reconsideration:
Grievance of
non-renewal decisions is limited to procedural matters and does
not extend to considerations of judgment (see section on grievance
procedures in the Faculty Manual). However, faculty members may
request reconsideration. It should be noted that non-renewal
decisions do not constitute dismissal and do not necessarily imply
unsatisfactory performance. The university is not obligated to
show cause or give reasons in the case of non-renewal of a
probationary appointment.
Mid-Year
Appointments:
For faculty members
who start their duties in the spring semester or thereafter, the
probationary period will ordinarily begin on the subsequent
September 1, with the first scheduled review occurring by March 1
of that year.
Third-Year
Reviews:
1. Probationary
assistant professors will receive a comprehensive performance
review during the spring of their third year, conducted by the
School Dean and the Promotion and Tenure committee in the same
manner as for faculty members requesting tenure.
Recommendations will be shared with the faculty member. The
Dean will recommend the action to be taken, conferring first
with the Provost in the case of a negative recommendation.
Exception:
Assistant professors credited at hire with two years toward
tenure consideration are not subject to third-year review, nor
are faculty hired at the associate rank.
2. Any time that
has been awarded toward tenure at hire is not included in the
three years. Such time is normally limited to one year; through
it may be greater in the case of faculty members who have served
previously in full-time faculty positions at UHV.
3. The
probationary faculty member is responsible for submitting review
materials by the date specified (normally the same date as for
submitting materials for annual performance evaluations). A
list of materials and format for submitting them are indicated
below.
Materials to be
Submitted for Third-Year Review:
Materials submitted
should be similar to those submitted for requesting promotion
and/or tenure, as outlined in Section E of the Faculty Manual.
The following list is intended to provide more specific guidance.
Primary materials should be submitted in a standard loose-leaf
notebook, preferably no more than a two-inch one.
1. Up-to-date
resume.
2. Evidence of
teaching activities and effectiveness:
a.
Description of teaching assignments, including new
preparations and courses taught off-campus or by distance
technology.
b. Summary of performance ratings for each year; overall
performance rating, teaching rating, and student ratings for
each term (based on the key survey items used by the school
for evaluation purposes).
c. Representative course syllabus with related writing
assignments and/or examinations that show follow-through on
course objectives. Different syllabi for the same course may
be usefully submitted in case of substantive changes.
d. Any evidence of student achievement—e.g., presentation
of papers, scores on state or national tests, etc.
3. Evidence of
research and professional activities and achievements:
List items, using standard bibliographical form or brief
descriptions, but do not submit
the actual documents unless requested.
4.
Evidence of service activities:
a. List school,
university, or UH System committees or similar entities on
which you have served, and describe briefly any other relevant
services performed.
b. Describe any
significant public service related to your professional
expertise. If you are unsure whether a service should be
construed as professionally related, please include it.
c. Any
additional materials or supporting documents should be
submitted separately.
E-3
University of Houston-Victoria Promotion Policy and
Procedures
3.1 Time in Rank
The Board of Regents
specifies no minimal or maximal time in rank prior to promotion,
although promotion to associate professor is normally expected to
carry tenure. The university’s expectation for minimal time in
rank is six years, with at least four of these at UHV. This
expectation applies to promotion from assistant to associate
professor and from associate to full professor.
Promotion depends upon
merit as determined by administrative and peer review. Completion
of minimal time in rank is not in itself sufficient. Faculty
members must request promotion and present their supporting
materials in accordance with the procedure detailed in this
section.
3.2 Recommendation for
Promotion
1.
Recommendations for promotion are based on overall professional
attainment, internal and external reviews, and the expectation of further professional growth at
UHV. For teaching faculty, service in three broad areas is
considered: teaching, research and other scholarly activity,
and service to the university and community. The procedures
outlined below are designed with a view toward providing a
balance between consistency in the evaluation of all candidates
and sufficient allowance for the varied interests, talents, and
accomplishments of candidates from diverse academic disciplines.
2.
Recommendation for promotion proceeds in the same manner as consideration for
tenure including the faculty portfolio and external reviews of
research, publications and creative activities. Material to be submitted are the same as indicated
under “Third-Year Reviews.”
3. The criteria
for the decision to recommend promotion are as follows:
a. Teaching
effectiveness: Evidence suggested: student evaluations, peer
assessments, list of courses taught per semester, course
outlines, examinations, and so forth.
b. Research or
other scholarly activities. Evidence suggested: books or
monographs; articles in refereed journals; formal
presentations at professional meetings and workshops;
non-refereed publications; grant proposals and/or reports
emanating from grants; consultant activities; other evidence
of professional/scholarly growth, including projects in
progress.
c. Service.
Evidence suggested:
1)
Institutional: curriculum development, student advisement,
committee memberships, colleague consultation (i.e.,
assisting on projects that involve one’s area of expertise,
reading articles in progress, presentations before faculty
of work in progress, guest lecturing for colleagues),
generation of funds, assistance in administrative functions.
2) Professional: significant participation and/or
leadership in the profession.
3) Community: activities related to one’s academic
field of expertise such as presentations and speeches,
conducting panels and workshops, membership on committees or
boards, voluntary consultations.
Revised: Fall 2006
Effective: January 2007
3.3 Procedures for Assessing
Evidence
The procedures for
assessing evidence for promotion follow:
After considering all
available information, the Promotion and Tenure Committee and the
administrative officers responsible for reviewing the candidate
will assess his or her performance in each of the three broad
areas (enumerated above) in the following terms:
1.
Performance
well below levels expected or required.
2. Performance
below levels expected or required.
3. Performance at
levels expected or required.
4. Performance
above levels expected or required.
5. Performance
well above levels expected or required.
The minimal
performance rating for promotion at each rank is as follows:
1. Promotion from
instructor to assistant professor requires a rating of three or
higher in all three areas;
2. Promotion from
assistant professor to associate professor requires a rating of
four or higher in teaching and that of three or higher in the
other two areas.
3. Promotion from
associate professor to professor requires one of three
combinations of ratings of the three categories:
-
A five in one
category, at least a four in a second, and at least a three in
the third, with teaching being one of the categories with at
least a four; and
E-4
University of Houston System Post-Tenure Review Policy
(1997)
4.1 Preamble
The Board of Regents
of the University of Houston System affirms the principle that the
quality of its universities is inextricably tied to the quality of
its faculty, and that the ability of a university to serve its
public is dependent upon the creation of an environment that
nurtures the development of its faculty so as to increase the
likelihood of success in the pursuit of teaching, research, and
service. Furthermore, the Board reaffirms its commitment to the
institution of tenure, recognizing that the public interest is
best serviced in a climate in which faculty members are free to
pursue the creation and dissemination of knowledge.
At the same time, the
Board recognizes the need to create an environment of
accountability and public trust in both the institution as a whole
and in individual faculty members.
The policies
promulgated below are intended to ensure that a tenured faculty
member consistently performs at an acceptable professional level,
to provide for a plan of faculty development where necessary, and
finally, in the instance of failure to correct deficiencies, to
provide for the revocation of tenure or other appropriate
disciplinary action.
4.2 Designation of Authority
Each university within
the University of Houston System shall adopt policies and
procedures providing for a periodic performance evaluation process
for all tenured faculty members. Such institutional policies and
procedures, and any subsequent amendments thereto, must be
approved by the Chancellor and the UH System Board of Regents.
Institutional policies and procedures may be designed to fit the
particular mission, traditions, and circumstances of the
individual universities and must in all cases adhere to the
following set of principles and procedures.
4.3 Fundamental Principles
1. Institutional
post-tenure performance review policies must conform to any and
all relevant state statutes, including procedures for
alternative dispute resolution (Chapter 154, Civil Practice and
Remedies Code) and to other applicable policies of the Board
(Board of Regents Policy 11:07— Faculty Dismissal).
2. Post-tenure
performance review policies and procedures at both the system
and university levels and any subsequent amendments thereto
(hereinafter referred to as “post-tenure performance review
policies”) are grounded in three principle academic values:
peer-review, academic freedom, and due process.
a. Peer Review
1. The
formulation of post-tenure performance review policies shall
include substantive and meaningful consultation with
appropriate faculty bodies.
2. The
review of individual faculty members shall include
provisions for involvement by appropriate faculty colleagues
in order to ensure that peer review is an essential
component of the post-tenure performance review process.
b. Academic
Freedom
Post-tenure
performance review policies shall reflect the system’s
long-standing and sustained commitment to the traditional
value of academic freedom. It is the intent of the board
that the implementation of post-tenure performance review
policies would not result in compromising this value in any
way.
c. Due Process
Post-tenure
performance review policies shall incorporate academic due
process rights, including notice of the manner and scope of
the evaluation, the opportunity to provide documentation,
notice of specific charges, and an opportunity for hearing
on those charges before disciplinary action is instituted on
the basis of such an evaluation.
3. Evaluations
shall be based on the professional responsibilities of the
faculty member in the areas of teaching, research, and service.
The evaluation process shall be directed toward the professional
development of the faculty member. Toward that end, the
institution, through its appropriate academic officers and in
concert with the affected faculty member, shall devise an
individual plan of professional development for faculty members
for whom a determination of unsatisfactory performance is made.
Such a professional development plan shall be specific with
regard to expectations, actions, timeline, resources, and the
consequences of non-correction of the identified deficiencies.
In the event that implementation of the professional development
plan does not result in substantial improvement of performance,
the faculty member may be subject to disciplinary action,
including possibly the revocation of tenure and dismissal. A
tenured faculty member subject to revocation of tenure and
dismissal on the basis of an unsatisfactory performance
evaluation must be given the opportunity for referral of the
matter to a non-binding alternative dispute resolution process.
4.4 Procedures
1. A
comprehensive performance evaluation process, which must include
peer review, shall be conducted for each tenured faculty member
no more often than once a year, not less often than once every
six years after attaining tenure.
2. Administrators
who also hold a tenured faculty position shall be subject to the
established review procedures for administrators as codified in
Board by-laws, Board policies, System administrative memoranda,
and component university policies on this subject.
3. The records of
actions taken to comply with these principles shall reside in
the Office of the Provost of each university. Deans must
provide an annual written report to the Provost with regard to
the status of faculty members for whom a professional
development plan has been established.
E-5
University of Houston-Victoria Post-Tenure Review Policy
(1998)
To serve the public
interest and fulfill the public trust, the University of
Houston-Victoria recognizes the practice of awarding tenure to
university faculty. Tenure, historically, stands as a protection
for the freedom of inquiry and research, the freedom of teaching
within the university, and the freedom of extramural utterance and
action. Tenure ensures that dismissal of a faculty member must be
based on performance outside of the above-mentioned protected
freedoms. This policy describes the UHV guidelines consistent
with state (Texas Education Code Section 51.942) and the
University of Houston System Board of Regents Policy on
Post-Tenure Performance Review.
5.1 Performance Evaluation
Policy
All faculty members,
tenured and untenured, at UHV are subject to an annual performance
evaluation. This evaluation process is based on the professional
responsibilities of the faculty member in teaching, scholarly
activities, and service, and where applicable, administration.
The process is directed toward the professional development of the
faculty member and incorporates commonly recognized academic due
process rights.
Performance Evaluation
Policies for Tenured Faculty:
All faculty members
whose principal responsibility is teaching are evaluated according
to the policies set forth in Section E-6 and E-7 of the Faculty
Manual. Academic administrators who hold tenure as faculty
members and who teach (or perform other faculty duties) as part of
their assigned responsibilities will be subject to the same review
procedures with respect to that portion of their responsibilities.
Performance
Categories:
All of the
university’s evaluation policies require that the person being
evaluated be placed into one of five categories of performance in
each of the three areas evaluated. The middle or third category
is the “competent” category; the top category is reserved for
those exhibiting an exceptionally high level of performance, and
the bottom category is reserved for those whose performance has
been judged to be significantly below levels expected
(unsatisfactory).
Performance
Notification:
All faculty members
receive a written notification of their annual performance
evaluation findings.
Loss of Academic
Tenure and Dismissal:
According to the UHV
Faculty Manual Section D-3, “demonstrated incompetence” and
“demonstrated dishonesty in teaching or research” on the part of a
tenured faculty member are causes for dismissal. Other causes for
dismissal are “substantial and manifest neglect of duty” and
“conduct involving moral turpitude or otherwise grossly in
violation of the ethics of the national university community.”
Dismissal shall "not be used to restrain faculty members in the
legitimate exercise of their academic freedom or civil rights.”
5.2 Discipline and Dismissal
of Faculty and Administrators Holding
Academic Tenure
Loss of tenure and
dismissal of a faculty member shall follow provisions in Faculty
Manual; Section D-4, which provide for all due process 5.2
Procedures.
Annual performance
evaluations will be conducted according to the above-referenced
policies in Sections E-6 and E-7 of the Faculty Manual. A faculty
member will be subject to revocation of tenure or other
appropriate disciplinary action if incompetency, neglect of duty,
or other good cause is determined to be present.
1. Initial
Indication of Unsatisfactory Performance: Tenured faculty
members whose evaluation places them below levels of performance
expected in teaching or whose combined scholarly activities and
service evaluation places them in the lowest overall category
will be informed in writing by their School Dean that their
performance is unsatisfactory.
2. Peer Review:
The Promotion and Tenure Committee shall review the performance
evaluations of all faculty yearly, work in concert with the
School Deans in determining any needed development plans,
monitor these plans, and recommend further actions to the
Provost.
3. Development
Plan:
a. When a
faculty member receives an evaluation of unsatisfactory
performance, the Promotion and Tenure Committee will implement
a comprehensive performance review in the context of the prior
three years of performance. If the committee concurs that the
faculty member’s performance is significantly below levels
expected (unsatisfactory), it will recommend to the Dean that
a professional development plan is in order.
b. The
development plan will be prepared by the Dean of the school in
concert with the faculty member. The Dean shall submit the
plan for the endorsement of the Promotion and Tenure Committee
and the approval of the Provost. The plan must be specific as
to resolution of the professional deficiencies, be clear on
the time of duration (normally one year) and allow for the use
of resources customarily available to faculty members.
c. Members of
the Promotion and Tenure committee will monitor the tenured
faculty member’s progress in meeting the conditions set forth
in the plan. If the performance is not satisfactory, the
committee may recommend revocation of tenure or other
appropriate action to the Provost. If progress is acceptable
but performance is still not satisfactory, the committee may
recommend extension of the development plan for up to one
additional year. The Provost must approve such an extension.
(Faculty Manual, Section D-4.4, “Dismissal Procedures” must be
followed if revocation of tenure is recommended and accepted.)
4. Other
Provisions: Nothing in this policy shall be construed to
prevent the university from invoking any of the provisions in
Faculty Manual, Section D, when it believes such action is
necessary.
5. Due Process and
Grievance Procedures: Faculty grievance procedures are
described in Faculty Manual, Section D-5. Additionally, if
revocation of tenure is recommended through this comprehensive
review process, the faculty member will be given the opportunity
to refer the matter to a non-binding alternative dispute
resolution process (ADR) as described in Chapter 154, Civil
Practice and Remedies Code. If both parties agree, another type
of alternative dispute method may be elected.
5.3 Faculty Development or
Improvement Plan Principles (1998)
In cases in which a
faculty member is placed on a written development plan or directed
in writing to improve performance in given respects,* the
following principles should guide the process:
-
The plan should
state the general expectations regarding the faculty member’s
performance in keeping with standards that apply to all faculty
members, for example, “Institutional service is expected.”
Specific expectations regarding the faculty member’s performance
should also follow from those standards, for example, “You are
expected to earn at least a three on service in your next annual
performance review.”
-
Normally, the
faculty member will be responsible for presenting the steps he
or she intends to take to make the needed improvements for
discussion and approval by the Dean.
-
Communication on
progress in carrying out the plan should occur between the
faculty member and Dean to the extent that the time frame and
opportunities for observation or review allow. However, a lack
of communication on progress does not remove the responsibility
of the faculty member for meeting the expectations with the
allotted period of development.
-
Assessment of
faculty performance should be based on objectively acquired
evidence, such as actual observation or recorded statements of
identifiable observers, rather than on unconfirmed or anonymous
reports.
-
The Dean should set,
and the plan should include, a terminal point for the assessment
of evidence and determination of the faculty member’s successor
failure in meeting the stated expectations. (Unless otherwise
stated, the terminal point would be the next annual performance
review.) In addition, a statement of potential consequences of
failure to meet expectations should be included in the written
plan.
-
The faculty member,
the Dean, and the Provost should receive copies of the written
plan, in the case of the faculty member to be delivered by hand
or registered mail.
*These guidelines do
not pertain to decisions regarding the reappointment of
non-tenured faculty members. The only process due in such cases
is notification by the stipulated date and access to grievance
procedures.
E-6 Annual
Performance Evaluations and Merit Pay Overview
Conceptually, merit
pay evaluations and annual performance evaluations should be
distinguished. Merit pay evaluations attempt to determine
meritorious performance in order to have a basis for awarding
salary increases. Annual performance evaluations provide a
feedback mechanism so that faculty members know how their Deans
assess their overall performance. Nevertheless, the two kinds of
evaluation have much in common—both assess performance. This
proposal therefore assumes that the annual performance evaluation
also serves as the basis for awarding merit pay. But it does not
address the matter of the consequences of substandard performance,
a critical concern in the case of annual performance evaluations.
It also does not address the relationship between annual
performance evaluations or merit pay evaluations and promotion and
tenure evaluations.
E-7 Annual
Performance Evaluations
See the particular
academic school for additional information on procedures. The
procedures and criteria used in each school may differ.
7.1 Process
As soon as feasible
after the end of the calendar year, the Dean will review the
performance of each faculty member in the school in light of
evidence on record or submitted by the faculty member. The Dean
will present the written results of that review—including a
numerical rating for overall performance to the faculty member.
The faculty member has the right to challenge that review and
assessment, and, if the challenge is not satisfactorily answered,
to file a grievance. The annual performance review is transacted
between two parties, the faculty member and the Dean. In case of
appeal at the school or institutional level, other parties
necessarily become involved in reviewing the evidence, criteria,
and judgments.
Changes to the
policies or procedures governing annual performance reviews in the
university or in an academic school may not be applied
retroactively in such a way as to adversely affect a faculty
member's annual performance review.
Definition: A faculty
member is defined as a voting member of Faculty Council (see the
Faculty Council Constitution, Article I Membership).
Updated: Summer
2004
7.2 Activities to be
Evaluated
All professional
activities are to be evaluated. The types of activities included
in each category follow. The list is not intended to be
comprehensive, and items are not necessarily listed in order of
importance.
Teaching:
1. Preparing
for and meeting class sessions
2. Holding office hours, keeping appointment, and
advising students
3. Composing and grading master’s comprehensive
examination questions
4. Serving on master’s thesis committees
5. Designing and
implementing curricular and course changes
Research and Scholarly
Activities:
1. Publishing
scholarly and professional books, articles, reviews, etc.
2. Presenting
research at scholarly or professional meetings
3. Chairing
sessions otherwise performing official roles at scholarly or
professional meetings
4. Attending
scholarly or professional meetings
5. Writing grant
proposals to support scholarly research
6. Producing
relevant creative works
7. Preparing
materials for local scholarly or professional use
8. Editing
scholarly or professional publications
9. Consulting
related to scholarly research*
Service—Professional
and Community:
1. Participating
significantly in a professional organization
2. Conducting
professional workshops
3. Appearing in
the media as a spokesperson for the profession
4. Writing grants
related to the support and delivery of instruction
5. Consulting
related to professional standing or expertise*
Service—Institutional:
1. Serving on
committees (System, university, Faculty Council, and school)
2. Conducting
institutional research
3. Assisting in
recruiting
4. Advising
in recruiting
5. Advising
student organizations
6. Delivering
auxiliary instruction (e.g., guest-lecturing, Academic Center
mini-lectures)
7. Creating
extracurricular intellectual and professional opportunities for
students
*Pro bono consulting
will be given significantly more weight than compensated
consulting.
7.3 Evidence of Performance
The list that follows
is to be considered indicative but not definitive. Items are not
necessarily listed in order of importance. In cases where no
system of evaluating an activity is in place and it would not be
worthwhile to create one, a mere statement that the work was done
is enough. The work done for a System committee is a case in
point. Documenting performance should not be an onerous task for
the faculty member. Trust that many tasks have been performed, as
well as can reasonably be expected should be the rule, not the
exception.
In some cases, most
importantly the case of student evaluations, the evidence is
generated by people other than the faculty member. In all such
cases, the faculty member has the right to respond to that
evidence.
Teaching:
1. Student
evaluations.
As unanimously approved by the Faculty Council (February 6,
1987) and subsequently by the President, student evaluations are
to be a “required, formal part of the faculty evaluation
procedure.” Full-time faculty have the option of student
evaluations during the summer terms, but School Deans may
require them for part-time faculty.
Faculty members are
encouraged to use the form for student evaluations recommended
by the Faculty Council or other appropriate faculty voice. They
may also use an additional form. In that case, it is the
responsibility of the Dean to assess the value of the additional
information. If the faculty member substitutes another form for
the recommended one, the burden of proof of the value of the
alternative form rests with the faculty member.
2. Syllabi and
other relevant course materials.
Faculty members are encouraged to submit copies of the course
syllabi and other relevant course materials distributed to
students in all courses taught during the period of evaluation.
3. Statement of
new preparations.
Although faculty members do not always determine whether they
will teach new courses, they are encouraged to submit a
statement of any new preparations. The reason is that new
courses take additional time to prepare and therefore restrict
the number of other activities that one can perform.
4. Statement of
graduate courses taught.
Because UHV does not always count graduate courses differently
from undergraduate courses in its workload policy, faculty
members are encouraged to call attention to the number of
graduate courses they have taught.
5. State of
off-campus courses taught.
Although off-campus teaching is rewarded according to the
workload policy, faculty member ought to list the off-campus
courses taught so that the Dean will understand the restriction
of the number of other activities that the faculty member was
able to perform.
6. Statement of
work on any master’s comprehensive and theses.
Because work on graduate committees usually involves no released
time, faculty members are encouraged to state the amount and
kind of work done on such committees.
7. Peer
evaluation.
Faculty members may augment other evidence of their quality of
teaching by peer review.
8. Statement of
number of advisees.
9. List of
activities in curricular and course design and implementation.
Research and Scholarly
Activities:
1. Publications.
2. Conference
papers.
3. Conference
programs.
4. Publications
edited.
5. Grants awarded
and grant proposals submitted related to research.
6. Statement of
research in progress.
7. Documents
prepared for local scholarly or professional use.
8. Description of
consulting activities related to research.
Service:
1. Statement of
significant participation in professional organizations.
2. List of
professional and community services rendered.
3. Description of
consulting activities related to professional expertise.
4. List of
committees on which one has served (noting those one has chaired
and
describing the amount of work involved when appropriate).
5. Results of
institutional research.
6. List of guest
lectures.
7. Statement of
recruiting activities.
8. Grants awarded
or submitted related to instruction or institutional
initiatives.
9. Statement of
duties as advisor of student organizations.
7.4 Weighing of
Categories—Teaching, Research, and Service
In accordance with the
emphasis on teaching in the mission of UHV, teaching should be
given the most weight in performance evaluations. The customary
ranges for each category follow:
