SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

(Advisory and Consultative)

[IMPLEMENTATION DATE: JULY 1, 1999]

At the April 1998 meeting of the University Faculty Senate, there was a forensic discussion about faculty undergoing post-tenure reviews in addition to the annual reviews described in HR-40. In response to comments made during that discussion, it was decided to discard that approach. This new proposal recommends that an extended review be made a part of HR-40. It should be a constructive review, that is, one which would look at what the faculty member had done as well as his/her future goals. Guidelines for the reviews will be established with "the participation of the unit’s faculty by each college or school, which may in turn ask for more precise guidelines from departments or other similar units, while keeping oversight responsibility."

Reasons for including the extended review as part of HR-40 include: 1) the need to achieve faculty development and when desirable to promote different career emphases over time, and 2) the desire to constantly improve program quality and the learning environment of students.

The Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs recommends that Policy HR-40 be modified as indicated below.

PENN STATE - HUMAN RESOURCES

Policy HR-40 EVALUATION OF FACULTY PERFORMANCE

POLICY'S INITIAL DATE: June 18, 1986

THIS VERSION EFFECTIVE: July 1, 1999

Contents:

Purpose

Responsibility for Conducting Review

Rationale

Scope of Review

PURPOSE:

To provide for an evaluation of the performance of each member of the faculty at least once each year.

RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCTING REVIEW:

RESPONSIBILITY FOR the faculty performance evaluation review RESTS WITH THE department/division heads or school directors and OR, where appropriate, campus executive officers and campus directors of academic affairs. Evaluations are conducted COORDINATED by the appropriate administrator at the location of the faculty member’s teaching ACADEMIC assignment, with input from the department OR DIVISION head of the disciplinary unit. if tenure is at a college other than the faculty member’s place of assignment.

Critical review is a natural element of a productive academic career. A faculty member's work is reviewed regularly in many different ways. Teaching is evaluated by peers and students; proposals for funding are evaluated by individual reviewers or panels of specialists; papers and books submitted for publication are reviewed by authorities in the field; published books are reviewed by other scholars; a faculty member's contributions in teaching, research and scholarship, and service are carefully scrutinized when the individual is considered for hiring or promotion.

In addition, the annual performance review is not only necessary for the process of determining merit salary increases; it also provides an occasion for self-evaluation and reassessment of the role a faculty member is playing, which may evolve significantly during the course of a career. It is an opportunity to acknowledge and recognize good work, point out areas for improvement, and, in a few cases, identify productive new uses of a faculty member's talents. It is a means of ensuring that the diverse talents of the entire faculty are productively applied to the many responsibilities of the University. In addition, performance reviews can help identify resource targets—places where additional resources could re-energize a faculty member whose energy or morale has run low or could lift an already productive member to new levels of achievement.

SCOPE OF REVIEW:

All faculty must be reviewed annually by the appropriate administrative officer. Each review should include the faculty member's written annual report and evidence of teaching effectiveness, and may involve thorough one-on-one discussions with the administrative officer of the faculty member's teaching, research, service, future plans, assignments, and salary.

The evaluations are made by using elements listed in HR-21, Definitions of Academic Rank, and HR-23, Promotion and Tenure Procedures and Regulations, and are conducted in accordance with procedures developed independently within each college. Each faculty member's evaluation is related to his or her area of assignment and responsibility, with maximum weight given to the area of major emphasis in the individual's assignment. Disciplinary heads or comparable administrative officers will provide written documentation to the faculty member of the results of these reviews.

To be most effective, the review must, at least periodically (e.g., 5 years), not only deal with the previous year's performance, but also take a longer range view.

, one that is consistent with the relevant cycle of academic performance and change. General guidelines for such reviews, consistent with this policy statement, must be established with the participation of the unit's faculty by each college or school--which may in turn ask for more precise guidelines from departments or other similar units, while keeping the responsibility of oversight.

In the event that improvements in performance are necessary, the faculty member and his or her administrative officer should work on an appropriate response, the implementation of which should be monitored by the administrative officer.

Finally, a clear link must be established between the performance review and faculty rewards.

Responsibility for overseeing the implementation of HR-40 rests with the Executive Vice President and Provost.

Subcommittee:
Louis Milakofsky, Chair
Victor Romero
Robert Secor
Valerie N. Stratton
James B. Thomas
Tramble T. Turner

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS
Syed Saad Andeleeb
Albert A. Anderson
James J. Beatty
Christopher J. Bise
Melvin Blumberg
Wayne R. Curtis
Renee D. Diehl
James M. Donovan
Dorothy H. Evensen
Margaret B. Goldman
Elizabeth A. Hanley
Sabih I. Hayek
Charles W. Hill
Philip A. Klein
Louis Milakofsky
John S. Nichols
Effy Oz
Amy L. Paster
Victor Romero
Dennis C. Scanlon
Cara-Lynne Schengrund, Chair
Robert Secor
Valerie N. Stratton
James B. Thomas
Tramble T. Turner, Vice-Chair