Senate Document Number 1198F
Date of Senate Approval 12/10/98
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Statement of Faculty Senate Action:
Guidelines for the Post-Tenure Review Committee
1. Standards for Post-Tenure Review Ranking Categories
Based upon the materials outlined in Section 3.12.2, subsection 6, items A-F, the PTRC will rank faculty performance as "superior," "adequate," or "in need of development." Guidelines for each ranking category are provided below.
Although it is suggested that a minority of faculty would be ranked as "superior," a majority as "adequate," and a small minority (or none at all) as "in need of development," the ranking should be based first and foremost on the quality of the faculty member's performance. The concrete bases for ranking are to be determined by the PTRC in the context of their reviews, however, the Committee must makes its judgements in accordance with UNCA's evaluation standards. UNCA evaluates performance in four interrelated areas:
2. contributions to one's discipline including scholarship/creative activity and service to the profession;
3. service to UNCA (department and university); and
4. community service in the area of one's expertise.
To encourage the development of a well-rounded faculty in the context of UNCA's teaching mission, PTR evaluations will emphasize and reward excellent teaching balanced by diverse contributions in the other areas.
Since UNCA is primarily a teaching institution, to be ranked "superior", the materials submitted by the faculty member must provide clear evidence of "superior" performance in the classroom. In addition the faculty member must be outstanding in at least two of the other three areas of responsibility. In all areas the faculty member must have performed in a manner that significantly contributes to their discipline and the university and its mission.
"Superior" is defined as excellent or outstanding performance that is clearly above the norm and thus considered exceptional. As a general guideline, less than one-third to one-fourth of the faculty being reviewed in any given year should be ranked as "superior." The "superior" ranking is reserved for those teachers who have clearly and consistently demonstrated remarkable and outstanding performance in the classroom, and have also made exceptional contributions in other areas, thus demonstrating a balanced contribution to the university and its mission.
To be ranked "adequate," the materials submitted by the faculty member must indicate "good" teaching balanced by solid performance and contributions in at least one of the other areas listed above.. "Adequate" contributions are defined as solid performance in the classroom, that is, satisfactory according to UNCA's high standards and sufficient, satisfactory, or acceptable performance in other areas. This ranking will be applied to faculty who perform as expected with consistently good teaching and persistent activity in either scholarship/artistic activity or in one of the two aspects of service.
In Need of Development
The materials provided by the faculty member assigned to this category indicate the person needs to improve their performance. Any person whose teaching falls below UNCA's standards must automatically be assigned to this category. In addition, good teachers with no record of contributions to their discipline, UNCA, or UNCA's community will also be placed in the "in need of development" category.
This ranking is defined as: falling short of standard expectations and thus requiring improvement because the demonstrated performance is unsatisfactory. To be placed in this category, there must be evidence of consistent deficiency over the five-year period of review. It is expected that few if any faculty will be ranked as "in need of development." An "in need of development" rating indicates that had the person submitted such materials at the time of a renewal or tenure decision they would not have received a favorable decision.
2. Appropriate Award for Superior Ranking (Section 3.12.3, subsection 3)
Faculty who earn a ranking of "superior" will receive a monetary award consistent with that which is given for tenure and promotion.
3. Procedure for PTR Committee Feedback on Process of Review
Each year before the end of the spring semester but following the completion of post-tenure reviews of faculty, the PTRC will reexamine Sections 3.12.2 and 3.12.3 of the PTR policy. With the goal of maximizing efficient and effective decisions, the PTRC will submit recommendations for potential revisions of the PTR procedure as well as the guidelines for ranking to the FWDC. Further, to the extent that is reasonable and generalizable year to year, the PTRC will provide operationalized guidelines for the four ranking categories.
FWDC will consider these recommendations and bring to the Senate any proposed changes no later than the second meeting of the fall semester. Any changes in the procedure can then be established prior to the instigation of further post-tenure review processes or decisions.