Talk:How to Simplify the Evaluation Process
From SPSU Wiki
Contents |
A vote for single evaluations
As for the first part (combining all evaluations into a single one per year), HOORAY! As someone who undergoes a yearly reappointment and doesn't normally work summers, it has always been an issue for me to come in during the summer to prepare a reappointment package which contains almost the same material as the annual review. For the past two years, I've tried to just do it all at one time (in the February time frame), but then I still have to go back and add any information for the remaining part of spring semester. I am all for a single evaluation, with all the parts defined ahead of time, to allow a thorough complete picture of the faculty member for both annual evaluations and reappointment. --Bmorrison 25 October 2005 10:37 (EDT)
streamlining the process
I do like the concept of one annual report that can be used for a variety of reasons. The levels we have now for promotion and tenure do seem a bit cumbersome, so streamlining this process can also be beneficial. No matter what process we choose, however, it has always been an issue with faculty that they don't get enough concrete feedback (or none at all) from each level of the approval process. This needs to be part of any structure we put in place.
Becky Rutherfoord
faculty input needed sooner
While I like the idea of a simplified process and I really like the idea of fewer committee meetings, I wonder if it's entirely fair to faculty going up for promotion and tenure to receive no peer feedback until the P/T timeframe. I may be misreading Svi's proposal, but that's how it appears to me. That could mean that a faculty member may be getting good annual reviews from his/her department chair, but then may get "blindsided" by a different response from the peer committee, particularly in those cases where the peer committee may know the faculty member's work/discipline better than the department chair. Maybe as a modification to the proposed plan, there should be faculty peer review at the pre-tenure stage, as this is the place where the faculty member to progress is supposed to receive feedback on progress and any issues he/she may face when the big P and T comes up in the next two years. Carol Barnum
Zvi replies: Maybe I didn't state this well enough in my post, but I'm not talking about eliminating the pre-tenure review. Just using the annual activity report (now expanded a bit) as the primary evidence, so that the candidate is not preparing the same basic materials multiple times in a year for multiple reviews. The pre-tenure review would be the review in the third year (if that's when it happens) in my proposal.
it's about time
I've been arguing for years that we should try to combine or streamline these processes. We've allowed two factors to keep us from the sensible thing;
1 - there is a mandated timetable that seems to argue against combining these review processes
2 - the process of rewriting P&Ps is so cumbersome that we compartmentalize our thinking
On point 1, I believe we can work with/around the BoR requirements and come up with a process that is in accord with the BoR P&Ps. On point 2, we simply have to decide what is to happen, and rewrite our P&Ps (there are 4 separate P&Ps that must be coordinated) so they interact the way they should.
There is no reason not to simplify the process.
Alan Gabrielli
The Advocate is Necessary
One of Zvi's ideas about evaluation that is not documented in this article was to have an advocate for each candidate for promotion and tenure. To me, the advocate is the best idea of all to improve evaluation at SPSU. Here's my rationale:
1) Every SPSU promotion and tenure committee that I have directly experienced has had difficulty keeping within an evaluator role. Some have had members who have advocated; some have had members who have done the opposite. That each candidate will have an advocate can go far to clarify the role of the committee as evaluators and also allow them additional ease in keeping more objective and to that role.
2) A small majority of packages (about 55%) that I have read are deficient. This is especially true for the narratives. Others tell me their experience is similar. The advocate can help remedy this situation by ensuring that the package represents complete staff work and is the best that it can be.
3) Utilizing the advocate position can serve to build community at SPSU. It can be designed and implemented to simultaneously respect youth, diversity, experience and growth.
4) Serving as an advocate should count towards the advocate's service as much as, for example, serving as the editor of a conference proceedings. This is a way for more senior faculty to invest their skill and experience to benefit SPSU and its faculty.
5) The candidate-advocate-evaluator approach can go far to increase the trust in SPSU's evaluations. With an advocate, each candidate's case can be presented better, more completely and more evenly balanced in relationship to other candidates for P&T.
To me, the advocate is an important and positive step in simplifying and improving the evaluation process for P&T.
Rich H-N rhalstea@spsu.edu ext 5509
