Performance Assessment: Types and Procedures

Important Note on Confidentiality: Administrators and faculty who are involved with performance assessment duties should remember that such proceedings are confidential. The committee guidelines described in Section 2.10 should be strictly followed to insure that employee rights to confidentiality are protected. Public records laws determine what documents are available for public scrutiny. In general, the following are usually open:

 the fact that employee evaluations took place;

 the positive results of employee evaluation proceedings (for instance, a promotion was granted).

The details of personnel performance assessment (letters, rebuttals, and so forth) are usually not available for public scrutiny.

Important Note on Meeting Deadlines: A faculty member’s failure to meet deadlines described in the promotion and tenure policies of the University shall mean automatic termination of the application process. If Department Heads, Review Committees, Personnel Committees, Deans, the Vice

President for Academic Affairs, or the President fail to meet deadlines, the applicant shall not be penalized or the candidacy jeopardized. Faculty may use such administrative failures as evidence in grievances dealing with violations of due process.

Performance assessment occurs in two (2) forms, the formative evaluation and the summative evaluation. Each of these has distinct purposes and procedures. “The Common Form” is the annual assessment instrument used for formative evaluations. “The Common Form” is also used for merit pay determinations and is also a primary evidential document in summative evaluations that are used for promotion and tenure determinations.

2.10.3.1 The Formative Evaluation

The Performance Review known as the formative evaluation of all instructors and probationary and tenure contract academic faculty shall be conducted by the Department Head in the spring and shall be based upon evidence of performance in the prior calendar year. (For the purpose of faculty development, faculty who have only served one semester before the beginning of the formative cycle shall also be reviewed and shall submit the proper forms and evidence as described in Section 2.10.3.2 below.) “The Common Form,” is the annual assessment instrument used for formative evaluations. The Head (or as appropriate, the Dean) shall prepare a formative evaluation report containing the following:

 an evaluation of the faculty member's effectiveness in each of the performance review categories (Section 2.10 );

 recommendations for

o merit salary increase,

o reappointment of term and probationary faculty (except as noted in Section 5.12.2),

o initiating Board–mandated remediation (Section 2.11.3) for tenured faculty once there have been multiple unsatisfactory reviews by the department head, and

o participation in faculty development programs.

Though separate forms can be used for merit pay determinations, all merit pay determinations are

calendar year, only faculty who have been employed for a calendar year (excluding the summer session) shall be eligible for merit pay. All forms are subject to the approval methods given in Section 2.10.2. Though standards can be established by each academic unit, these standards must use the percentage guidelines mentioned in Section 2.9.2. All formatives must be accompanied by evidence as described in Section 2.10.2.

Each department shall have its own discipline–specific criteria and shall have its own formative evaluation form that was discussed and recommended by majority vote of at least a quorum of the instructors, probationary, and tenure contract academic faculty within the department with approval of the Department Head and Dean to ensure the criteria shall contain the appropriate rubrics and comply at least minimally with the criteria and evidence in the Common Form. Issues not resolved at the Department Head or Dean's level are subject to review by the Vice President Academic Affairs. In addition to any departmental forms, the evaluating department head must complete the Common Form.

2.10.3.2 The Process for the Formative Evaluation

Using “The Common Form” as a vehicle for an annual self–report, the process for the formative evaluation shall be as follows:

1. Peer review in the formative evaluation process is not required but may be used in some colleges and/or departments. If colleges and/or departments elect to use the peer review, the process must be incorporated in step c below. Peer review shall always be treated as a recommendation to the Department Head or Dean or Director of the University Library. The peer review recommendation does not relieve the administrator from the responsibility of making the evaluative decision.

2. On or before January 25, the faculty member shall submit an annual self–report (“The Common Form”) to the Department Head, or in the case of Department Heads, to the Dean or Director of the University Library. This self report shall include identification of activities in the performance review categories and may include a self–assessment of performance.

3. On or before March 15, the Head (or, as appropriate, the Dean) shall prepare a written formative evaluation report and meet with the faculty member to review the report and to provide the faculty member with a copy; the report shall indicate the following:

 the Head's (or Dean's) evaluation of the faculty member's effectiveness in each of the performance review categories;

 the Head's (or Dean's) recommendation on salary increases subject to the availability of funds (Section 2.12 );

 the Head's (or Dean's) recommendation on reappointment for probationary faculty;

 the Head's (or Dean's) recommendation, if any, on participation in Faculty development programs;

 the Head's (or Dean's) recommendation for Board–mandated remediation of tenured faculty once there have been multiple unsatisfactory reviews (Section 2.11);

 the Head's (or Dean's) recommendation on any revision of the development plan currently in effect by March 25.

4. The faculty member shall read and sign the Head's report to indicate that the annual review meeting was held and that the faculty member has read the report.

5. The faculty member has the right to prepare a written response to the report to be submitted to the Head (or Dean) within five (5) working days of the date of the annual review meeting.

6. The Head shall submit copies of the faculty member's self–report, the formative evaluation report, and (if one exists) the faculty member's written response to the Dean on or before March 25.

Materials that clarify previously submitted evidence may be included with the written response.

7. If the Dean concurs with the recommendation of the Head and the faculty member has not disagreed with those recommendations, the Dean shall forward those recommendations to the Vice President for Academic Affairs on or before March 30. A copy of the final recommendation is also submitted to the Director of Assessment and Institutional Research. If the Dean disagrees with the

recommendations of the Head or if the faculty member has disagreed with those recommendations (through the letter of response described in e above), the Dean shall convene a meeting with the

faculty member and the Head on or before March 30 to attempt to resolve disagreements.

Unsupported appeals will not be accepted for review.

8. If all of the parties agree on a resolution, the Dean shall submit, on or before April 15, final

recommendations to the Vice President for Academic Affairs, with copies to the faculty member and the Head. A copy of the final recommendation is also submitted to the Director of Assessment and Institutional Research. If all parties do not agree on a resolution, The Dean shall call the Appeals Committee within six working days of the meeting scheduled to attempt resolution as noted in Number 7 above and specified in Section 2.10.3.3 The Formative Evaluation Appeals Process.

9. The Vice President for Academic Affairs may review all formative documents or merit ratings at any time during the process described in a through h above, but the Vice President for Academic Affairs shall not initiate changes to these documents or ratings.

2.10.3.3 The Formative Evaluation Appeals Process

The formative evaluation itself may be appealed. Non–reappointment of probationary or term faculty may not be appealed. Faculty may review their file at any stage of the process by contacting the Chair of the reviewing committee. Candidates may withdraw their appeal at any time by filing a notice of intent with the Dean of the College or with the Director of the Library.

Attempts at resolving the appeal shall first be made at the department and college level (see 2.10.3.2 d–f above). If no resolution can be reached, the Dean shall call the Appeals Committee within six working days of the meeting.

The College Appeals Committee shall consist of the College Peer Review Committee as specified in Section 2.10.3.5.1.

1. The Dean shall supply the Chair of the Appeals Committee with a file of all appropriate documentation.

2. The Appeals Committee shall convene and shall conclude its work within ten (10) working days following the receipt of the appeal.

3. The documentation shall be examined.

4. The Committee shall interview the appellant and Department Head and/or the Dean.

5. The Appeals Committee Chair shall communicate in writing to the Dean the Committee’s

recommendation. This communication shall be signed by all Committee members and placed in the faculty file (with a copy of the recommendation going to the faculty member). The recommendation and all material shall be forwarded to the Dean of the College for his or her acceptance or rejection.

6. After reviewing the recommendation of the Appeals Committee, the Dean shall communicate in writing his or her recommendation to the faculty member. If the faculty member is not satisfied with the Dean's recommendation, the faculty member may ask for a university–wide appeal by

communicating the request in writing to the Dean within five (5) working days after receiving the Dean's recommendation. The Dean shall then forward all material to the Chair of the University–

wide Appeals Committee within six working days. If the Dean does not receive a request for further appeal from the faculty member, the Dean shall forward all material to the Vice President for Academic Affairs with a copy going to the Office of Assessment and Institutional Research.

7. The University–wide Appeals Committee shall be the same committee described in Section 1.14.2.11 (the University–wide Promotion and Tenure Appeals Committee). After receiving the

documentation from the Dean, the Committee, acting as a Formative Evaluations Appeal

Committee, shall convene and shall conclude its work within ten (10) working days. The Committee Chair shall communicate in writing to the Vice President for Academic Affairs the Committee’s recommendation. This communication shall be signed by all Committee members and placed in the faculty file (with a copy of the recommendation going to the faculty member). The recommendation and all other material shall be forwarded to the Vice President for Academic Affairs.

8. The Vice President shall communicate his or her decision in writing to the faculty member within six working days of receipt of the Appeals Committee decision. The decision of the Vice President for Academic Affairs shall be final. A copy of the Vice President's decision and all other documents shall

be returned to the Dean for filing. A copy of the final recommendation is also submitted to the Director of Assessment and Institutional Research.

2.10.3.4 The Summative Evaluation

Peer review at Nicholls State University shall always be treated as a recommendation to the Department Head, Dean or Director of the University Library, or the Vice President. The peer review recommendation does not relieve the administrator from the responsibility of making the evaluative decision.

The Performance Review known as the summative evaluation shall be conducted in the fall semester. The review shall be based upon cumulative evidence of performance subsequent to the last formative evaluation (including all activities since the last formative evaluation) and shall result in decisions with regard to promotion and/or tenure.

Summative evaluations shall be scheduled at the discretion of the Department Head and/or Dean or may be scheduled in response to a request by the faculty member (for example, in the application for promotion). In all cases, a summative evaluation shall be performed before formal consideration for promotion and tenure.

Department Heads who also function as faculty shall be evaluated as tenured faculty.

In the following sections the term “summative dossier” refers to all of the documents that are passed from one level of review to a higher level. A checklist for the dossier is available on the internal administrators’ drive (M drive). A summative dossier may contain forms, a professional portfolio, appropriate letters and responses, and acceptable clarifying documents. A candidate may review the summative dossier at any stage in the process by making the appropriate contacts and scheduling an appointment.

Note: While reviewing the summative process described below, faculty should keep the following points in mind:

 there is only one appeal per year

 there are three levels of appeal

 appeals may be made at any level, regardless of the outcome(s) of the previous level(s)

2.10.3.5 The Process for the Summative Evaluation

The process for the summative evaluation shall be as follows:

2.10.3.5.1 Peer Review Committee

The Deans and Director of the University Library shall appoint a Peer Review Committee on or before September 15. The Committee shall be composed of not more than five (5) full–time tenured professors. Deans and Department Heads cannot serve on this committee; faculty directors and coordinators who are contracted at 50% or more teaching duties are eligible. If there are an insufficient number of professors, the highest ranking tenured faculty shall serve. There shall be adequate representation of women and minority groups in the selection of the committee members.

The Peer Review Committee shall function in those reviews concerning promotion and tenure. For policy review, the committee shall use the most current version of the Policy & Procedure Manual.

The committee shall also consult and have at hand all appropriate departmental promotion and tenure policies.

See also the charge for the college-level peer review committee from the report of the first promotion and tenure committee, available on the internal administrators’ drive (M drive).

2.10.3.5.2 Notifications

A Department Head and/or Dean or a faculty member may initiate the summative evaluation. A Department Head and/or Dean or a faculty member may initiate the summative evaluation. The faculty member may schedule a summative evaluation by either (1) making such a request in the faculty member's Faculty Development Plan in November or by (2) submitting a letter of intent to the Department Head on or before March 25.

Note: Faculty should be aware that Peer Review Committees will not accept self–initiated faculty requests for a summative review unless there is evidence of (1) or (2) above.

By September 15 of each year, the Department Head will notify the faculty who requested a summative evaluation in the faculty development plan or by letter of intent, but whose requests have been denied.

Also by September 15 of each year, the Department Head will notify the faculty who are being considered for promotion and/or tenure and shall submit to the Peer Review Committee a summative initiation form for each faculty being considered for promotion and/or tenure. A separate form shall be submitted for promotion and for tenure.

In the case of promotion, the initiation form shall be considered a recommendation by the

Department Head for promotion. Department Heads shall not fill out an initiation form unless they are recommending a candidate for promotion.

In the case of tenure, the initiation form is required to begin the review and shall not be considered a recommendation for or against tenure.

2.10.3.5.3 Presentation of Credentials

The faculty member shall provide the Peer Review Committee with the required professional portfolio for promotion and/or tenure before October 5 of the review year. The faculty member being considered is responsible for providing evidence of accomplishment, including a cover letter, vita, and other appropriate supporting documentation within the portfolio. The Department Head is responsible for making the appropriate formative reviews available to the Peer Review

Committee so that the committee can comply with the requirements of Section 2.10.3.5.5 (2).

Faculty may refer to the internal administrators’ drive (M drive) for forms and other portfolio preparation materials.

Faculty who requested a summative evaluation in their development plans or by a letter of intent but whose names were not submitted to the Peer Review Committee by the Department Head may submit their portfolios to the Peer Review Committee on or before October 5. Such faculty may submit their names provided they have not been considered during the preceding three years. If such faculty have been considered during the preceding three years, they may submit their names if their portfolios evidence significant change.

Candidates must not discuss their candidacy with any committee member. The candidate should discuss the review with the chair or with the committee as a whole; no other person may approach the committee in the candidate's behalf. The Chair shall notify candidates in writing acknowledging the receipt of the portfolio, and the candidates shall reply. The Chair shall prepare a summative dossier that contains the portfolio and all the appropriate forms prepared by the Dean’s office or the office of the Director of the Library according to University guidelines. The dossier contains an itemized list of the contents of the summative dossier. This itemized list shall be accurately updated as it accompanies the file during the summative process.

If a candidate withdraws from the summative process after the Peer Review Committee officially receives the portfolio (October 5), the candidate’s application shall count as a full summative application.

2.10.3.5.4 Peer Review Committee Agenda

The Peer Review Committee shall convene on or before September 30 at the call of the Committee Chair and, based on initiation forms submitted by Department Heads or Deans, shall establish an agenda for the fall semester to permit completion of the committee's report on or before November 5. The agenda will include a timeline for handling 1) performance review summative that result in recommendations for promotion and tenure and 2) those summative reviews called for in Section 2.11.2.

The agenda will also include the names of faculty members who have submitted their own credentials but who have not had summative initiation forms submitted by Department Heads or Deans. (Section 2.10.3.5.2, Paragraph 1 contains information about the notifications faculty members should have made before submitting their own credentials to the committee.) The committee shall begin consideration for a full summative review that shall continue through all of levels of review mentioned in Sections 2.10.3.5.6 – 2.10.3.5.11 below. Wherever necessary with these self–submitted candidates, the committee will make immediate determinations of significant change (see

Paragraph 3, Section 2.10.3.5.3). If significant change is found, the committee shall begin consideration for a full summative review that shall continue through all of levels of review mentioned in Sections 2.10.3.5.6 – 2.10.3.5.11 below. If significant change is not found, the portfolio shall be immediately returned to the candidate and no further consideration shall be given.

2.10.3.5.5 Timelines for Committee Evaluation

The Peer Review Committee shall submit to the Department Head (or Dean, in the case of Department Heads) a written report that will indicate the following:

 The committee's recommendation on promotion and/or tenure (deadline November 5);

 The committee's summative assessment of the faculty member's effectiveness in the review categories as documented in the annual performance reviews and (in accordance with approved applicable standards) during the years covered by the review (deadline November 5);

 Any additional evidence employed by the committee.

All appropriate documents shall be added to the summative dossier and the list of contents updated.

In the case of promotion, the candidate may withdraw at any time by filing notice with the college Dean or Director of the Library.

In the case of promotion, the candidate may withdraw at any time by filing notice with the college Dean or Director of the Library.

In document POLICY & PROCEDURE MANUAL (Page 110-120)