Policy on Periodic Evaluation of faculty Performance
In compliance with HR-40, the College of the Liberal Arts has devised policies for the periodic review of tenured faculty to supplement the annual review.
In general, the annual review process, already in place, provides information to department heads and the dean about faculty performance relevant to merit evaluations; salary and workload adjustments; possibilities for promotion, tenure, or special awards; and other relevant matters that depend on the faculty member’s accomplishments. It also provides regular feedback to faculty members on their performance. The periodic review mandated in the 1999 update of HR-40 supplements this basis of evaluation by providing an opportunity for a longer range look at tenured faculty accomplishments and plans for the future. It is our intention to provide a meaningful review process that makes use of procedures already in place for the existing annual review and places no undue additional burden on faculty time.
The review will be based on performance in teaching, research, and service. The responsibility of each member of the faculty is to contribute to the accomplishments of the College by promoting the intellectual growth and progress of students, advancing knowledge and understanding in their areas of expertise, and serving society. To meet this responsibility, each member of the faculty must demonstrate a career-long commitment to improving personal and College capabilities in teaching, research, and service, though the characteristics of the contributions and the balance among them may change over the course of a career.*
I. Who is subject to review? Tenured faculty are eligible for review when they have been tenured for at least seven years, have been in rank five years or more at Penn State, have not been otherwise reviewed for promotion or similar purposes for at least five years, and do not have an agreed upon retirement date within two years of the proposed review. Because of the large number of faculty who will be eligible for review when the policy goes into effect, reviews of those faculty will be spaced over a four-year period. Faculty in this group will be reviewed in order of seniority based on the date of their last promotion. This periodic review will replace the annual review in the year it is done.
II. Procedures:
A. Faculty to be reviewed will be informed at the time of their annual review the previous year.
B. For campus faculty who have retained their tenure homes at University Park, the review will be conducted at the campus location, with input from the appropriate department head. Results of the review should be reported to both deans.
C. The department head is responsible for compiling the faculty member’s teaching evaluations during the previous five years and assembling the annual activity reports and reviews. The head in the department in which the faculty has a majority appointment (the home budget head) is responsible for obtaining the teaching evaluations and other relevant materials from other units in which the faculty is appointed. If it is not on the faculty member's vita, the head should make sure to list the faculty's supervision of Ph.D.'s and placement. That is, for each Ph.D. candidate, list name, year graduated, and initial placement or current placement. The faculty member will submit a current curriculum vitae, a brief (no more than one page) statement of past accomplishments that provides a guidepost to the vitae rather than a restatement of it, and a statement of no more than two pages of the most relevant plans for the next five years in research, teaching, and service.
D. The head of the department in which the faculty member has a majority appointment will review the materials, and write an evaluation. The head should comment on strengths and weaknesses and make relevant suggestions for improvement, as needed, and for changes in assignment or resources provided to the faculty member, as appropriate.
E. For faculty with budgeted joint appointments, the home budget head will consult with the head(s) of the other units where the faculty member has a budgeted appointment. Each head of such other unit may write an individual letter of evaluation and submit it to the majority appointment head; alternatively, upon mutual agreement of the heads, they can collaborate on one letter.
The head will give a copy of the evaluation letter or letters to the faculty member being reviewed. The faculty member may respond in writing to the head if he or she desires.
F. The head will submit to the dean the materials providing the basis for the review, the head’s letter, and the faculty member’s written response, if any. The Dean will review the materials and provide a separate written evaluation. This evaluation should indicate agreement or disagreement with the head’s review and any recommendations for improvement or assignment or resource adjustments. The Dean may make further suggestions or set requirements for future actions. The Dean will provide the faculty member and department head with a copy of his or her evaluation.
The Dean may submit the materials to the College Faculty Development Review Committee for its advice before writing his or her letter. At the time the materials are sent to the Dean, the faculty member may also request a review by the College committee.
III. Timetable. The faculty member being reviewed should submit relevant materials to the department head by January 10. The department head should forward his or her letter to the Dean by March 1. And the Dean should provide the faculty member with a copy of his or her letter by April 15.
Policy date: April 8, 1999 12/20/99 added Section II. B. 9/20/00 further revision to Section II. Earlier drafts of this policy were reviewed, commented upon, and revised by the Liberal Arts Senate Caucus, Faculty Advisory Committee, and Administrative Committee
*This language is a somewhat revised version of that in the EMS Faculty Evaluation Process statement (10/29/97).