How to Simplify the Evaluation Process
From SPSU Wiki
Dear Colleagues,
As you know, many of the faculty have expressed some frustration and concern about our evaluation process, and how complex and ill-defined it is. This includes the reappointment process, annual evaluation, promotion and tenure process, etc. It is quite possible for someone to be evaluated three times in a single year! Surely we can simplify the process so that we wind up with something that is fair, clear in its expectations, and happens only once per annum.
As a first step, I would like us to think about rolling up all the various evaluations for full-time faculty into a single annual evaluation. With the exception of one's first year at SPSU (where we need an early reappointment evaluation so that we can give someone early notice if necessary), this could happen with the submission of the annual activity report. The report could be broadened a bit to include "evidence" in the four areas and a write-up of one's trajectory. In reappointment years, this would be reviewed by the Chair and Dean, as at present, and thereby constitute the reappointment report. In all years, it would constitute the major evidence for promotions, pre-tenure review, post-tenure review, the tenure process, and for obtaining permission for consulting (which the Board of Regents requires faculty to get approval for, but I think some of us are ignoring). This change would eliminate the reappointment review, and the pre-tenure and post-tenure reviews as separate evaluations. I can give more detail, but what I'm interested in is your thoughts on the general idea.
As a second step, I would like us to think about consolidating the many levels of review at tenure. Currently, we have six steps: a peer committee review, review by the Chair, review by the Dean, review by the School Committee, review by the VPAA and review by the President. That's a lot of paper, and a lot of duplication of effort. Any one of these is enough to impede one's promotion or tenure. Why couldn't we consolidate this to two levels prior to the President--an Area Committee (consisting of all tenured faculty in the department including the department chair and an additional one from each other department in the school)and a University Committee (consisting of 2 elected members from each school, plus the four school Deans plus the VPAA). The Area Committee would write a report "laying out the case" and making a recommendation to the University Committee. The University Committee would ensure that there was equity across schools and from year to year, and make a recommendation to the President.
This is a tenure structure that I am familiar with and that I have seen work successfully at an institution with a very broad range of disciplines, ranging from Fine Arts to Psychology to Business to Biology to Engineering. It is my understanding that some folks are concerned that faculty in School A might not be able to adequately assess candidates from School B. Perhaps there are also other concerns with such a system.
Please weigh in and let me know what you think.
