4A-11 SECTION 11. EVALUATION OF DEPARTMENT CHAIRS

4A-11.1 Annual Evaluations of Faculty Responsibilities

Each department chair is evaluated annually by the Dean of his or her college or school and by the Office for Academic Affairs. Procedures parallel those for annual evaluations of all faculty, except that the duties normally carried out by the department chair are handled by the Chair's Dean (see Section 4A-7). A chair is evaluated in terms of teaching, scholarship, and service using area weights deemed appropriate for the department. There will, of course, be no merit salary increase recommendation from the department chair. As part of the annual evaluation of the Chair's faculty responsibilities, the Dean will schedule a conference with each Chair to discuss the Dean's evaluation of the Chair's performance.

The Dean will prepare a written annual evaluation report and present it to the department chair at least one day before the annual evaluation conference is to be held. At the evaluation conference, the department chair signs the evaluation report and receives a copy.

The Office for Academic Affairs collects from each chair an annual self-evaluation and supporting documentation, and may conduct classroom observations of the department chair's teaching. In evaluating a chair's performance both as a faculty member and as an administrator, the Chair's Dean and the Office for Academic Affairs consider direct knowledge of the department chair's administrative performance, input from other administrators, and input from faculty, as well as documentation submitted by the department chair.

4A-11.2 Evaluation of Chair's Departmental Administrative Responsibilities

Department chairs' administrative responsibilities are taken into account by the Office for Academic Affairs as part of the department chairs' annual evaluation, although formal faculty assessments are not collected each year. Departmental chairs' administrative responsibilities are assessed as part of the procedure for renewable terms for department chairs (Faculty Handbook, Section 4-1.1b). Briefly, chairs are evaluated by the Office for Academic Affairs in the third year of service as chair, and in the fifth year of service as chair. At those times, the Office for Academic Affairs will seek input from the faculty concerning performance of the chair's administrative responsibilities and will distribute evaluation forms (e.g., Figure 4A-7) to each full-time faculty member in the department. The forms will be returned directly to the Office for Academic Affairs.

4A-11.3 Evaluations for Tenure and/or Promotion

Department chairs who may be candidates for tenure and/or promotion will be evaluated under the tenure and promotion procedures in Section 4A-8, except that the Chair's Dean will carry out the duties normally the responsibility of the department chair. Necessarily, however, there will be no recommendation from the department chair regarding the tenure and/or promotion decision.

4A-11.4 Probationary Evaluations; Advisory Evaluations

Department chairs in their first year of employment at the University will receive a first-year comprehensive evaluation just as any other probationary faculty member does (see Section 4A-9). Procedures normally the responsibility of the department chair will be handled by the Chair's Dean. Necessarily, however, there will be no recommendation from the department chair regarding reappointment.

Any department chair, just as any other faculty member, can call for an advisory evaluation. Advisory evaluations may be requested by the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. Advisory evaluations have no formal consequences for decisions about contract renewal, tenure, or promotion.

4A-11.5 Evaluation for Renewable Terms for Department Chairs

Department chairs are appointed for terms of five years. They may be continued in the chair's position for additional terms. Procedures for appointment and for evaluation of chairs with respect to term continuation and renewal are specified in the Faculty Handbook, Section 4-1.2.

4A-12 EVALUATION OF TENURED FACULTY (POST-TENURE REVIEW)

4A-12.1 General Background

A. In response to the Board of Governors' and General Administration of The University of North Carolina's request to develop institutional policies and procedures with regard to post-tenure review, the Post-Tenure Advisory Committee of The University of North Carolina at Pembroke has prepared this document outlining UNC Pembroke's post-tenure review process. It is felt that this document adheres not only to the 1) broad principles outlined in the Executive Summary as found in the Report of the University of North Carolina Committee to Study Post-Tenure Review that was approved by the UNC Board of Governors on 16 May 1997, 2) the Guidelines as found in the Administrative Memorandum Number 371 issued by President C. D. Spangler, Jr. on 24 June 1997, and 3) Chapter VI of The Code of the University (August, 1988), but also parallels and reflects the basic tenets of the Faculty Evaluation Model as found in the UNCP Faculty Handbook. It must furthermore be noted that nothing in this Post-Tenure document prohibits the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and the Chancellor from making personnel decisions and taking personnel actions relative to reappointment, non-reappointment, and dismissal of faculty in warranted cases as indicated by The Tenure Policies and Regulations of The University of North Carolina at Pembroke [UNCP Faculty Handbook, Section 3 through Section 3-9] and The UNC Code [The UNC Code, pp. 19-25].

B. In the words of the Executive Summary cited above, "Post-tenure review is a comprehensive, formal, periodic evaluation of cumulative faculty performance, the prime purpose of which is to ensure faculty development and to promote faculty vitality (p. I)." This document further states that "institutional policies shall explicitly involve peers in the review process." In addition, it was noted in that report that the recommendations contained therein were intended "to strengthen the system of tenure and academic freedom while assuring on-going quality in the teaching, research, and service mission of The University of North Carolina."

C. Thus presented below are the necessary 1) principles and criteria upon which the UNCP post-tenure review process is based, 2) principles governing the roles of individuals and groups, 3) evaluation procedures to be followed, 4) forms needed for the cumulative evaluation of tenured faculty, 5) a calendar of events for cumulative evaluation of tenured faculty, and 6) a specified time line of not more than three academic years for the implementation of the review process.

4A-12.2 Principles and Criteria

A. Faculty at The University of North Carolina at Pembroke who are tenured must undergo the cumulative review process outlined below every five years. The purpose of this review is to support and encourage excellence among tenured faculty by 1) continuing tenure for faculty whose work is found satisfactory, 2) providing a clear plan and a specified time line of not more than three academic years for improvement of performance of faculty found unsatisfactory, and 3) for those whose performance remains unsatisfactory, providing for the imposition of appropriate sanctions, which may include in the most serious cases of incompetence a recommendation for discharge. ["A faculty member, who is the beneficiary of institutional guarantees of tenure, shall enjoy protection against unjust and arbitrary application of disciplinary penalties. During the period of such guarantees the faculty member may be discharged or suspended from employment or diminished in rank only for reasons of incompetence, neglect of duty or misconduct of such nature as to indicate that the individual is unfit to continue as a member of the faculty." The UNC Code, p. 21 Section 603(1).]

B. All UNCP faculty are evaluated annually in three areas (teaching, scholarship, and service) according to a four-category Standard Performance Rating Scale (Figure 4A.6.) This annual review includes a(n) 1) Self-Evaluation Report, 2) Student Evaluation Report, 3) Chair's Evaluation Report, 4) Chair's Annual Merit Salary Increase Recommendation, 5) Dean's Recommendation for Annual Salary Increase, and 6) recommendation of the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs (Section 4A-7.) In addition to these reports, First Year (and Second Year when recommended) Evaluations for Contract Renewal and Evaluations for Tenure and/or Promotion include a Peer Evaluation Report. The latter of these evaluation processes also includes a Tenure and Promotion Evaluation Report (Section 4A-5.2; and also Section 4A-8 through 4A-9.2). The comprehensive, periodic, cumulative review process outlined herein for tenured faculty in no way detracts from, replaces, or diminishes the importance and significance of this annual performance review. Furthermore, a comprehensive review undertaken for promotion decision purposes will preclude the need for the cumulative review process outlined in this document until the fifth year following such review. As is true for all phases of the UNCP faculty evaluation model, a faculty member has the right to receive written feedback and to submit a rebuttal to any aspect of reports submitted by Deans, department chairs or Peer Evaluation Committees.

C. In situations where a faculty member has received a rating of "unsatisfactory," an individual development or career plan will be created that includes 1) specific steps designed to lead to improvement, 2) a specified time line in which improvement is expected to occur, and 3) a clear statement of consequences should adequate improvement not occur within the designated time line. These consequences may include dismissal as allowed by The UNC Code, (p. 21 Section 603 (1)).

D. All phases of this evaluation process are to be guided by the principles set forth in Sections 4A-1 to 4A-3 of the UNCP Faculty Evaluation Model (UNCP Faculty Handbook. Thus all "Principles and Criteria" relevant to faculty evaluation detailed in Section 4A-2 of that document are also relevant to the post-tenure evaluation process, and consequently are not repeated in this present document. These include principles and definitions, criteria, and documentation for the evaluation of teaching (Section 4A-2.2), scholarship (Section 4A-2.3), and service (Section 4A-2.4).

4A-12.3 Principles Governing the Roles of Individuals and Groups

A. The Faculty Member Being Evaluated

All tenured faculty will undergo a cumulative review process every five years commencing from date of tenure. If during that period, the tenured faculty member is evaluated for promotion, this cumulative review will not be necessary until the fifth year following the conclusion of that process. As indicated in Section 4A-3.1 of the UNCP Faculty Evaluation Model, the faculty member's self-evaluations should be "a primary source of information about the goals, methods, and degrees of success associated with his or her performance." As is also stated therein, the annual weights assigned to each area by the individual being evaluated are to be taken into account by subsequent evaluators. Furthermore, the candidate has the right to submit a rebuttal pertaining to any aspect of the reports submitted by the department chair or the Peer Evaluation Committee or Dean.

B. Students

As is the case with all evaluation procedures at UNCP, student evaluations, while thought to play a prominent role in evaluating the faculty member's teaching, do not by themselves provide sufficient information to judge fully a faculty member's performance as a teacher. Hence, evaluation of teaching effectiveness at UNCP involves a variety of types of documentation. [For more information on the role that students play in the evaluation process at UNCP, see Section 4A-3.2.]

C. The Peer Evaluation Committee

The Peer Evaluation Committee is responsible for preparing and submitting a Peer Evaluation Report to the Office for Academic Affairs. This group is responsible for gathering appropriate information, assessing its implications, and formulating a coherent evaluation of the faculty member's performance. The Peer Evaluation process must be independent of the department chair's evaluation.

D. The Department Chair (or Dean for department chairs)

The department chair (Dean of the Chair's school or college for department chairs) is responsible for writing his/her own recommendations (see Figure 4A.8 below), and submitting this document to the Office for Academic Affairs.

E. The Dean of the Faculty Member's School or College

The Dean will review the reports from the Chair and from the PEC, as well as any supporting materials and rebuttals. The Dean will assess the performance of the faculty member based on the materials presented and will complete the Dean's Recommendation for Post-Tenure Review. The Dean will give the faculty member a copy of the Dean's recommendation and submit that recommendation, with all attached materials, to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.

F. The Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs

The Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs is responsible for making recommendations based on the materials submitted by the Dean to the Chancellor concerning the status of each tenured faculty member who has undergone the cumulative review process (for further information regarding the responsibilities of the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, see Section 4A-12.4 below). The Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, in consultation with the faculty member, the faculty member's Department Chair (or Dean for department chairs), and the Dean of the relevant college or school, will also be responsible for constructing, monitoring, and evaluating satisfactory completion of any plan for improvement of performance for any faculty member whose performance has been judged unsatisfactory.

G. The Chancellor

As Chief Executive Officer of the University, the Chancellor receives, reviews, and acts upon the recommendations of the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. After reviewing the materials produced by this evaluation process, the Chancellor takes actions as deemed appropriate. In situations where a tenured faculty member has received a rating of "unsatisfactory," and the identified deficiencies are not removed in the specified period of time, the Chancellor may impose sanctions, which may include discharge as allowed by The UNC Code (Section 603 (1)).

4A-12.4 Evaluation Procedures

A. The cumulative evaluation for tenured faculty provides a basis for the support and encouragement of excellence among tenured faculty by 1) continuing tenure for faculty whose work is found satisfactory, 2) providing a clear plan and a specified time line of not more than three academic years for improvement of performance of faculty found unsatisfactory, and 3) for those whose performance remains unsatisfactory, providing for the imposition of appropriate sanctions, which can include a recommendation for discharge. All tenured faculty will undergo this cumulative review process every five years. If during that period, the tenured faculty member is evaluated for promotion, this cumulative review will not be necessary until the fifth year following the conclusion of that process. In the initial stages of this process, those faculty members with more than five years of service beyond tenure will be reviewed in order of seniority (for more information concerning this matter, see below in the section labeled "Timetable for the Implementation of the Review Process"). The cumulative review process includes the faculty member, the Peer Evaluation Committee, the department chair (Dean of relevant college or school in the case of department chairs), the Dean of the faculty member's college or school, the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, and the Chancellor.

B. At the point in time when the cumulative evaluation for tenured faculty process is to begin, the faculty member involved will be so notified in writing by his/her department chair (Dean of relevant college or school for department chairs) (see Calendar of Events below). The faculty member will subsequently submit to his or her department chair (Dean of relevant college or school for department chairs) a copy of 1) Self Evaluations for the previous five years, 2) Student Evaluation summaries for the previous five years, 3) Chair Evaluations for the previous five years, 4) Dean's annual evaluation reports for the previous five years, 5) any additional information since the last annual evaluation that is deemed pertinent, and 6) a completed copy of the Peer Evaluation Nomination Form (Figure 4A.2). In the initial stages of this process, these various materials might be collected from a variety of sources (the faculty member's own copies, copies in the possession of the department chair, and/or copies in the possession of the Office for Academic Affairs). The department chair (or Dean for department chairs) then 1) appoints three faculty members to the Peer Evaluation Committee in the manner described in Section 4A-8.3.A, 2) calls this group together for their initial meeting in order to orient them to the process, and 3) makes available to them the materials cited above with the exception of the Chair Evaluations. The Chair Evaluations are not made available to the Peer Evaluation Committee in order to protect the integrity and independence of the peer evaluation process.

C. The make-up of the Peer Evaluation Committee will be identical to that described in Figure 4A.2 of the UNCP Faculty Handbook.

D. The Peer Evaluation Committee and the department chair (Dean of relevant college or school for department chairs), working independently of each other, are responsible for preparing and submitting a Post-Tenure Evaluation Report Form (See Figure 4A.8) to the Dean of the faculty member's college or school and, through the Dean, to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. These reports, based on the various documents that have been submitted, will include a rating of the overall performance of the faculty member as either satisfactory or unsatisfactory and a narrative justification. If the ranking indicates unsatisfactory performance, the Committee's report has the option of including specific suggestions that might lead to improvement. The faculty member undergoing this cumulative post-tenure review process will be given two completed, signed, and dated copies of each of these reports (the Peer Evaluation Committee's report and the department chair's report). Within three days, the faculty member being evaluated returns one copy that has been signed and dated. This signature indicates merely that the faculty member acknowledges being apprised of its contents, not that he/she agrees with it. In all cases, the faculty member being reviewed may submit a rebuttal to the Office for Academic Affairs within ten days of having received these reports. These two reports are subsequently submitted by the respective chair (Peer Evaluation Committee or department) to the Dean of the faculty member's school or college.

E. The Dean of the relevant college or school will review the reports from the Department Chair (if available) and the Peer Evaluation Committee, including any supporting materials provided by the Chair or Peer Evaluation Committee, as well as any rebuttals submitted by the faculty member being evaluated. The Dean will then complete the Dean's Report for Post-Tenure Review, including his or her evaluation of the faculty member's performance as satisfactory or unsatisfactory. The Dean's Report will serve as a cover letter to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and will include as attachments the reports from the Department Chair and from the Peer Evaluation Committee, along with all supporting documents. Within three days, the faculty member will sign the Dean's Report, acknowledging having seen it but not necessarily agreement with it. One copy of the signed Dean's Recommendation will be retained by the faculty member. The Dean will then forward his or her report, with the attached materials, to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.

If the Dean does not agree with the evaluation of the Chair and/or the PEC, the Dean must justify that judgment with appropriate comments. The faculty member has the right to submit a rebuttal to the Dean's evaluation within 10 days of signing the report.

F. The Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs will review the Dean's report, with the reports of the Department Chair and the Peer Evaluation Committee and all supporting documents attached. In the event that the ratings in the reports submitted unanimously indicate unsatisfactory performance, the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs will communicate this finding in writing to the faculty member, the Department Chair (unless the faculty member is the department chair), and the Dean of the faculty member's college or school. It will be responsibility of the Department Chair (or Dean if the faculty member concerned is the Department Chair), in collaboration with the faculty member evaluated, to draw up an individual development or career (remediation) plan. The plan shall include steps designed to lead to improvement in the faculty member's performance to a satisfactory level, a specified time frame of not more than three academic years in which this improvement is to occur, and a clear statement of consequences should improvement to a satisfactory level of performance not occur within the specified time frame. After review and concurrence by the Dean of the faculty member's college or school, the plan will be submitted to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, who must approve the plan, taking into account the need for institutional resources to support the faculty member's efforts to remediate identified deficiencies in his or her performance.

At the end of the time period specified in the remediation plan, the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, in consultation with the faculty member's Department Chair (Dean, if the faculty member is a department chair), and Dean of the faculty member's college or school, will determine if the provisions of the plan have been met. If so, the faculty member will be judged satisfactory in performance for the current post-tenure review cycle. Note that the existence of a remediation plan does not defer or postpone any succeeding post-tenure review. If the provisions of the remediation plan have not been met and the required improvement not occurred, the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs shall recommend sanctions to the Chancellor, under the provisions of the UNCP Tenure Regulations (Section 3 of the Faculty Handbook) and of The Code of the University of North Carolina. Such sanctions may include reduction in rank, discharge, or other disciplinary action.

If performance ratings unanimously indicate satisfactory performance or if there is disagreement among the reports on the satisfactory or unsatisfactory performance of the faculty member being evaluated, the Provost and Chancellor for Academic Affairs shall recommend to the Chancellor that no action be taken.

G. As Chief Executive Officer of the University, the Chancellor receives, reviews, and acts upon all evaluative materials provided by the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. After reviewing the materials produced by this evaluation process, the Chancellor will take appropriate action(s). In the case where a faculty member‘s performance is found to be unsatisfactory and those elements of unsatisfactory performance have not been improved to a satisfactory level in the specified period, the Chancellor's action may include discharge as specified by The UNC Code (Section 603 (1)).

4A-12.5 Forms Required for Cumulative Evaluation of Tenured Faculty

4A-12.6 Timetable for the Implementation of the Review Process

In order to ensure 1) that all tenured faculty are evaluated within the initial five-year period and 2) that an approximately equal number are evaluated each year, the following timetable has been devised.

Year of Post-Tenure Review          Faculty Needing to be Reviewed                  No. in Category

Year 1 (1998-1999)                    All faculty tenured during 1966-1975         12
                                                   All faculty tenured in 1993                                         3

Year 2 (1999-2000)                    All faculty tenured during 1976-1981           6
                                                   All faculty tenured in 1994                                        10

Year 3 (2000-2001)                   All faculty tenured during 1982-1984           13
                                                   All faculty tenured in 1995                                           4

Year 4 (2001-2002)                    All faculty tenured during 1985-1987             6
                                                   All faculty tenured in 1996                                            9

Year 5 (2002-2003)                    All faculty tenured during 1988-1992            14
                                                   All faculty tenured in 1997                                             1

Year 6 (2003-2004)                   All faculty in Year 1 category                                       15
                                                   All faculty tenured in 1998                                             ? 

Year 7 (2004-2005)                    All faculty in Year 2 category                                       16
                                                   All faculty tenured in 1999                                              ?


Figure 4A.1

Format for Evaluation Reports

These format guidelines give an overview of specific information that should appear in a faculty member's self-evaluation form, the department chair's evaluation report, the Peer Evaluation Committee's evaluation report, and the report of the Promotion and Tenure Committee. Area weights assigned to specific areas must sum to 100%. The following are the headings which should appear at the beginning of each evaluation area being discussed with the area weight listed to the right of the heading.

1). Introductory Heading - The introductory heading should appear at the top of the first page of the evaluation form and include the following information as listed below.

Faculty Member's Name____________________________________________

Current Professorial Rank __________________________________________

Current Academic Year Department __________________________________

Type of Form Self Chair Peer _______________________________________

Type of Evaluation (check all applicable) Annual _____ Tenure _____ Promotion _____

2). TEACHING Area Weight (50% to 70%) _________

a) Classroom activities. Discuss classroom work as it relates to how knowledge in a faculty member's discipline is covered (e.g., categories, principles, summaries), how the specific content of a discipline is imparted (e.g., facts, examples), the development of general student skills (e.g., communication, critical thinking, creativity, mathematics), how student learning is motivated (e.g., stimulating curiosity, confidence, and task-specific motivation), measures of student performance (e.g., examinations, papers, presentations, other projects), and future plans for development in the area of teaching.

b) Auxiliary teaching activities. Discuss evidence that grades have been submitted in a timely manner, how students are being advised, supplementary instructional time provided outside of class, the supervising of student research projects, working with colleagues to develop curricula, and plans for future development in this area.

3). SCHOLARSHIP Area Weight (10% to 40%) ________

a) Research. Discuss scholarly research for the period of the evaluation. In particular, there should be emphasis on (a) how knowledge has been developed, (b) the application of existing knowledge used to solve practical problems, (c) the application of professional knowledge and skill to an artistic problem if applicable, or (d) the completion of a special program of intellectual development. Include comments on future plans for development in this area.

b) Publication. Discuss scholarly works that have been disseminated within the faculty member's discipline. Examples across disciplines are exhibition of artistic work, editing grant applications, publication in scholarly journals, and publishing of works aimed toward student and general audiences. Also include comments on future plans for development in this area.

c) How has the information from your most recent evaluation been used to improve instruction?

4). SERVICE Area weight
(10% to 40%) ________

A faculty member may work in any of the following categories.

a) University Service. Comment about on-campus service provided during the period, including activities such as committee work, grant administration, consultations supporting the work of staff or faculty. Quality of service is very important (e.g., serving actively on a small number of committees is more valuable than serving minimally on many committees). Include comments on future plans for development in this area.

b) Professional service. Comment on the nature, scope, and effectiveness of service to the faculty member's profession. Include comments on future plans for development in this area.

c) External Service. Comment on the strengths and weaknesses of off-campus service during the period, including such activities as participation on professional committees and governing boards, providing professional consultation to schools, civic organizations, and government agencies, and providing leadership on public matters. Include comments on future plans for development in this area.

5). Anticipated Area Weights for the Next Academic Year - This section should only appear on the self-evaluation form. The following anticipated area weights as indicated below should be listed in this section.

Teaching (50% to 70%) ___________

Scholarship (10% to 40%) ___________

Service (10% to 40%) ____________

6). SYNTHESIS - This section will only appear in a department chair or Peer Evaluation Committee's evaluation form. In this section, the evaluator(s) determine the overall performance rating of the faculty member for the period covered. The quality of performance is weighed in relation to the faculty member's area weights. The final evaluation should (a) adhere to the guiding principles, (b) reflect equity within the department and among departments, and (c) allow a reasonable degree of flexibility in how a faculty member orients his or her effort.

a). Rationale of rating - This section clarifies the relationship between the various performance areas as listed in the University mission statement and the overall performance ranking given.

b). Overall rating of faculty member - Listed below are the ratings a faculty member will be assigned.

____________Distinguished performance
____________Very good performance
____________Adequate performance
____________Deficient performance

__________________________________
Date

__________________________________
Date
_____________________________________
Signature of Department or Committee Chair

_____________________________________
Signature of Evaluated Faculty Member


Figure 4A.2

Peer Evaluation Committee Nomination Form

Current Academic Year ____________ Department________________________

Faculty Member's Name ________________________________________________

Department Representatives. Nominate up to three members from within your department to serve on your Peer Evaluation Committee. (To the extent possible, they should be tenured. In small departments, you may nominate one tenured faculty member from an allied field outside the department. You may not nominate your department chair, other faculty members who are being considered for tenure and/or promotion during this academic year, or members of the Promotion and Tenure Committee.) Flexibility in appointments under these rules are allowable for first-year evaluations in small departments.

University Representative. Nominate one tenured faculty member from outside your department to serve on the Peer Evaluation Committee.

________________________________________________________________

Assured nomination. From the names appearing above, enter the name of the one individual whom you wish to be nominated automatically to the Peer Evaluation Committee.

________________________________________________________________________

____________________________        ________________________________________
Date                                                         Signature of Candidate


Figure 4A.3

Tenure, Promotion, and Renewal Form

Current Academic Year __________________ Department __________________________

Candidate's Name _________________________________________________________

Current Professorial Rank _________________________________________________

Number of Years at UNCP (including present year) ________________

Number of Years in Rank (including present year) _______________

Type of Decision (check each that applies) Promotion ____ Tenure ____ Renewal ____

Recommendations

Promotion: Approved ________ Disapproved _________ Not applicable _________

Vote of Committee (when applicable): Number For ________ Number Against ________

Remarks (optional) ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________

Tenure: Approved ________ Disapproved _________ Not applicable _________

Vote of Committee (when applicable): Number For ________ Number Against ________

Remarks (optional)______________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

Renewal after probationary year: Approved ______ Disapproved ______
Not applicable________

Vote of Committee (when applicable): Number For ________ Number Against ________

Remarks (optional)______________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________

(Continue on the back)




Participating Members of Committee:____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

Abstaining Members:___________________________________________________


_______________________               _________________________________
Date                                                      Signature of Chair

_______________________ _________________________________
Date Signature of Evaluating Committee Member

_______________________ _________________________________
Date Signature of Evaluating Committee Member

_______________________ _________________________________
Date Signature of Evaluating Committee Member

_______________________               __________________________________
Date                                                      Signature of Evaluated Faculty Member
                                                             (except for Promotion and Tenure Committee use)

We nominate this faculty member for (check one or more):

1. UNC Board of Governors' Award for Excellence in Teaching
2. UNCP Teaching Award
3. Adolph L. Dial Award for Scholarship/Creative Work
4. Adolph L. Dial Award for Community Service


DRAFT
Figure 4A.4
Student Evaluation of Instruction Form

Date__________ Professor______________________ Course #_____________

Course Title_______________________________ Expected Grade________

Your Year in School (circle one): Fresh. Soph. Junior Senior

Number of times you have been absent in this course (approx.)________

Your input plays a very important role in the evaluation of teaching at UNCP. Therefore, please give the most accurate statements and ratings that you can. To maintain the independence of your judgment, do not talk with other students as you complete this form. When you are finished, please pass the forms to a student selected by the class. He or she will collect all the forms, place them in an envelope, seal the envelope, and then deliver it to the department secretary. Your instructor will not be present as you complete the form, and he or she will never see any of the original forms. Instead, the instructor will receive a summary of their contents next semester. Do not include your name.

I. Written Evaluation. Describe your perceptions of this course. Focus especially on aspects of the course that you found valuable, and offer suggestions for improvements. These comments are considered quite valuable, so please weigh them carefully. Be accurate and give details. Feel free to use as much space as you need.

(continued on the back)


II. Ratings. Begin by finding the space marked NAME at the top of the answer sheet: enter the name of this course (NOT your name). Then rate the instructor on the following statements, using the scale given below. Complete the first rating by filling in the appropriate bubble after the space for item 1 on the answer sheet. Continue in this manner until all of the statements have been rated. Use a dark pencil.

Scale:

(a) Strongly Agree

(b) Agree

(c) Disagree

(d) Strongly Disagree

(e) Don't Know

Statements:

1. Clearly communicated the course plan (objectives, grading and attendance policies, and schedule) 2. Made good use of the materials that students were required to purchase
3. Started and ended class at a dependable, appropriate time
4. Clearly explained specific topics through lectures, discussions, and demonstrations
5. Gave a coherent course (with different parts relating clearly to one another)
6. Related the course to general knowledge and to ideas from other courses
7. Was effective in getting students involved in class sessions
8. Stimulated a desire to learn outside of class and general intellectual curiosity
9. Challenged students and required a sufficient amount of work to achieve the course objectives
10. Was prompt in grading and returning work
11. Accurately measured students' performance through appropriate tests, papers, and other procedures
12. Followed reasonable standards in assigning letter grades to different levels of performance
13. Acted in a courteous and professional manner
14. Was available to students during office hours and for appointments
15. Had a positive, constructive attitude toward the subject
16. In general, taught the course effectively

Supplementary departmental questions are to follow here, if requested.


Figure 4A.5
Annual Merit Salary Increase Recommendation Form

Current Academic Year __________________ Department _____________________

Faculty Member's Name__________________________________________________

Current Professorial Rank ________________________________________________

Number of Years at UNCP (including present year)_______________________

Number of Years in Rank (including present year) _______________________

Overall Recommendation for Merit Salary Increase - Annual merit salary increase recommendation should reflect the faculty members current year performance rating, the UNC Board of Governors' regulations on the dispersal of salary increase monies, and University-wide constraints set by the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and by the Chancellor.

Performance Rating: Check one:                    

Distinguished        ______
Very Good          ______
Adequate             ______
Deficient (explain) ______
Recommended Merit Salary Increase. Check one:

High        _______
Medium   _______
Low        _______
None      _______

Remarks (optional): __________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________

______________________            ______________________________
Date                                                 Signature of Department Chair

______________________            ______________________________
Date                                                 Signature of Evaluated Faculty Member


I nominate this faculty member for (check one or more):

1. UNC Board of Governors' Award for Excellence in Teaching
2. UNCP Teaching Award
3. Adolph L. Dial Award for Scholarship/Creative Work
4. Adolph L. Dial Award for Community Service


Figure 4A.6
Standard Performance Rating Scale
Faculty Evaluation, The University of North Carolina at Pembroke

This scale is to be used in evaluating each major area of responsibility: teaching, scholarship, and service.

Distinguished performance consists of an exceptionally high degree of success in performing the various duties in the area. To earn a rating in this category, the faculty member should demonstrate exceptional creativity and involvement in performing all the responsibilities related to the area, and these efforts should result in a very high level of effectiveness relative to the opportunities available at the University.

Very good performance consists of an overall pattern of very substantial success in meeting the highest standards of faculty performance. The faculty member may be consistently very good in all domains or may be outstanding in several domains and only good in others.

Adequate performance consists of performance that generally meets minimum standards of faculty performance. This category is also earned when the faculty member is good in some functions and mildly deficient is others so long as the overall contribution to the University is adequate. Any deficiencies lie in secondary domains rather than in those directly impacting on the University's major functions.

Deficient performance consists of an overall pattern of success that is below an acceptable minimum.


Figure 4A.7

Department Chair Evaluation Form

Instructions: This form is for use by a faculty member in evaluating the department chair. The forms are distributed, collected, and assessed by the Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. Use the scale given below to rate your opinion of the department chair's performance during the past year. Assign a numeric rating ranging from 5 (excellent) to 1 (highly deficient) to each area. Since a rating by itself provides only limited information, you should also write comments in the space provided or on a separate sheet. These comments will be crucial in identifying specific strengths and weaknesses.

Scale: 5 Excellent; 4 Good; 3 Adequate; 2 Needs improvement; 1 Unsatisfactory

I. LEADERSHIP OF TEACHING ACTIVITIES: shows general optimism and enthusiasm toward the department's teaching responsibilities; encourages creativity, diversity, and dedication in teaching; facilitates the development of rigorous yet reasonable teaching standards, fosters the timely development and revision of curricula, discreet and balanced in handling student input; reduces interpersonal tensions and promotes genuine consensus in the area of teaching, innovative and flexible in solving practical problems related to teaching (e.g., printing, scheduling, and utilization of classroom and laboratory resources), inspirational as a model of good teaching, available to confer with faculty on these matters, and democratic in leadership style and the delegation of responsibilities in this area.

Rating________ Comments:

II. LEADERSHIP OF SCHOLARLY ACTIVITIES: provides avenues for recognizing scholarly achievement within the department, promotes tolerance and understanding of different approaches to research within the department, fair in allocating departmental resources to support research, resourceful and cooperative in helping faculty members solve practical problems related to research (including the development of grant proposals), inspirational as a model of scholarly achievement, available to confer with faculty on these matters, and democratic in leadership style and the delegation of responsibilities in this area.

Rating________ Comments:

III. FACULTY EVALUATION: fair in setting aside personal feelings, loyalties, and philosophical considerations in conducting evaluations, reasonable in setting evaluation standards, accurate and thorough in reviewing the details of a faculty member's work, flexible in encouraging individualized patterns of overall achievement, conscientious in using evaluative criteria that are consonant with the guidelines of the Faculty Evaluation Model and the broad parameters of the disciplines represented in the department, diligent in handling the procedural details associated with evaluation, available to confer with faculty on these matters, and democratic in leadership style and the delegation of responsibilities in this area.

Rating________ Comments:

IV. REPRESENTATION OF THE DEPARTMENT: effective in communicating the department's concerns to the administration and the administration's concerns to the department, effective in representing the department to accrediting organizations and to potential students and faculty, diligent and resolute in seeking University resources for the department, stalwart in protecting the department's standards and integrity, and democratic in leadership style and the delegation of responsibilities in this area.

Rating________ Comments:

V. RECRUITMENT OF FACULTY: accurate in assessing the department's short- and long-term needs, diligent in announcing vacancies, processing applications, and meeting legal requirements, flexible in filling positions with the best available candidate, democratic in establishing recruitment procedures and making final decisions, and democratic in leadership style and the delegation of responsibilities in this area.

Rating________ Comments:


Figure 4A.8

The University of North Carolina at Pembroke

Post-Tenure Evaluation Recommendation Form

Current Academic Year ___________________ Department _______________________

Faculty Member's Name _____________________________________________________

Current Professorial Rank ___________________________________________________

Number of Years at UNCP ______________ Number of Years in Rank ______________

Ranking (check one):


Narrative Justification for Ranking:






_______________ ____________________________________________________
Date                        Signature of Peer Evaluation Committee/Department Chair

_______________ ____________________________________________________
Date                        Signature of Peer Evaluation Committee Member

_______________ ____________________________________________________
Date                        Signature of Peer Evaluation Committee Member

_______________ ____________________________________________________
Date                        Signature of Evaluated Faculty Member


Figure 4A.9
Format for Dean's Report of First-Year Comprehensive Review

To: Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs

Subject: Reports for First-Year Comprehensive Review of __________________________

I have read the Chair's Report, the Peer Evaluation Committee's Report (and any rebuttals, if provided) and have reviewed any other materials attached to those reports, and I

______ Recommend renewal after the probationary year
______ Do NOT recommend renewal after the probationary year

Additional Comments (if necessary):















____________________________________________ ________________
Signature, Dean of the College/School of ___________ Date

____________________________________________ ________________
Signature, Faculty Member (if needed) Date

Attachments: Chair's Report
Peer Evaluation Committee Report
Rebuttals (if any)



Figure 4A.10
Format for Dean's Recommendation for Annual Salary Increase



To: Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs

Subject: Recommendation for Annual Salary Increase for ___________________________

I have read the Chair's Report, the Peer Evaluation Committee's Report (and any rebuttals, if provided) and have reviewed any other materials attached to those reports.

_____ I agree with the Chair's recommendation.

_____ I do NOT agree with the Chair's recommendation and recommend the following:
_____ High Merit Salary Increase
_____ Medium Merit Salary Increase
_____ Low Merit Salary Increase
_____ No Merit Salary Increase

Additional Comments (if necessary):












____________________________________________ ________________
Signature, Dean of the College/School of ___________ Date

____________________________________________ ________________
Signature, Faculty Member (if needed) Date

Attachments: Chair's Report
Rebuttals (if any)


Figure 4A.11
Format for Dean's Report for Tenure/Promotion



To: Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs

Subject: Reports for Tenure/Promotion of ____________________________________

I have read the Chair's Report, the Peer Evaluation Committee's Report (and any rebuttals, if provided) and have reviewed any other materials attached to those reports, and I

_____ Recommend Tenure _____ Recommend Promotion

_____ Do NOT recommend Tenure ______ Do NOT recommend Promotion

Additional Comments (if necessary):















____________________________________________ ________________
Signature, Dean of the College/School of ___________ Date

____________________________________________ ________________
Signature, Faculty Member (if needed) Date

Attachments: Chair's Report
Peer Evaluation Committee Report
Rebuttals (if any)


Figure 4A.12
Format for Dean's Report for Post-Tenure Review




To: Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs

Subject: Reports for Post-Tenure Review of ____________________________________

I have read the Chair's Report, the Peer Evaluation Committee's Report (and any rebuttals, if provided) and have reviewed any other materials attached to those reports.

I evaluate the faculty member's performance as:

______ Satisfactory
______ Unsatisfactory

Additional Comments (if necessary):















____________________________________________ ________________
Signature, Dean of the College/School of ___________ Date

____________________________________________ ________________
Signature, Faculty Member (if needed) Date

Attachments: Chair's Report
Peer Evaluation Committee Report
Rebuttals (if any)


Table 1

Typical Calendar of Events for Annual Evaluations

The events listed below are intended as guidelines only; dates are approximate and may be altered as conditions warrant. Specific policies and procedures are found in the full Faculty Evaluation Plan.
DATE EVENT OR DOCUMENT
August 14-
April 14
Area Weight Discussion: A faculty member can discuss at anytime before submitting the Self-Evaluation Report the area weights to be assigned to specific areas of evaluation.
December Fall Student Evaluation: All faculty scheduled for student evaluations in the fall semester should conduct these evaluation the last week of class (Section 47-2 C). Department chairs compile Student Evaluation Reports.
April 1-14 Spring Student Evaluation: Faculty scheduled for student evaluations in the spring semester should conduct these evaluations during April 1 to April 14. See Section 47-2 C for discussion of the schedule of student evaluations. The department chair is responsible for compiling a summary of student evaluations.
April 14 Submission of Self-Evaluation Report: A faculty member should submit his or her Self-Evaluation Report to the department chair by April 14 (Section 4A-7.1).
April 14-
May 1
Annual Chair's Evaluation Report and Faculty Conference: The department chair will prepare an annual Chair's Evaluation Report for each member of the department, and discuss this report and the Annual Merit Salary Increase Recommendation with the faculty member being evaluated (Section 4A-7.3).
Report
transmittal + 3 days
Signing and Returning Chair's Evaluation Report: The faculty member has three (3) working days after receipt of chair's evaluation to review the evaluation materials, and to sign and return one copy to the department chair.
Report signing +
10 days
Optional Rebuttal of Chair's Evaluation: The faculty member may submit a rebuttal of the Chair's annual evaluation to the Dean of his or her school or college (Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs if the Dean is also the department chair) within 10 days after signing the report when there are areas of disagreement.
May 1 Submission of Chair's Annual Reports: The department chair should submit to the Dean of the respective school or college the annual Chair's Evaluation Report, attaching the faculty member's Self-Evaluation Report, any supporting documentation, Student Evaluation Report, and Annual Merit Salary Increase Recommendation.
May 1-15 Annual Dean's Evaluation Report: The Dean will prepare an annual Dean's Evaluation Report for each member in his or her school or college, and complete the Annual Merit Salary Increase Recommendation for the faculty member being evaluated.
Report transmittal + 3 days Signing and Returning Dean's Evaluation Report: The faculty member has three (3) working days after receipt of Dean's evaluation to review the evaluation materials, and to sign and return one copy to the Dean.
Report signing + 10 days Optional Rebuttal of Dean's Evaluation: If the Dean's evaluation disagrees with that of the department chair, the faculty member may submit a rebuttal of the Dean's annual evaluation to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs within 10 days after signing the report.
May 15 Submission of Dean's Annual Reports: The Dean should submit the annual Dean's Evaluation Report, attaching the faculty member's Self-Evaluation Report, any supporting documentation, Student Evaluation Report, and Annual Merit Salary Increase Recommendation to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.
May-August Faculty Contracts: The Office of the Chancellor should send the next year's contract, and salary increase information, to faculty members by the start of the new academic year.


Table 2

Typical Calendar of Events for Tenure and/or Promotion

The events listed below are intended as guidelines only; dates are approximate and may be altered as conditions warrant. Specific policies and procedures are found in the full Faculty Evaluation Plan.

DATE EVENT OR DOCUMENT
April 1-14 Spring Student Evaluation: Faculty members collect student evaluations (the schedule varies by surname and year).
August 21 Early Review Petition: The faculty member petitions for early review for tenure or promotion, if desired.
September 7 Evaluation Announcement: The department chair notifies the faculty member, the Dean, the Promotion and Tenure Committee (PTC), and the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs of the impending major evaluation.
September 21 Submission of Materials: The faculty member presents the department chair with documents required (see Section 4A-8.2).
September 30 PEC Formation: The department chair announces the composition of the Peer Evaluation Committee (PEC).
October7-
November 15
External Review Initiation: If desired, external review of the faculty member's scholarly or creative work is initiated by either the faculty member or the PEC (through the department chair).
  Classroom observations: Observations in the candidate's classes are carried out by the department chair and members of the PEC.
  PEC Evaluation: The PEC deliberates on all materials, observations, etc., to reach a recommendation. A report is drafted and the PEC Tenure, Promotion and Renewal Form is completed.The PEC transmits its report to the faculty member.
  Chair's Evaluation: The department chair prepares an independent report and completes the Tenure, Promotion, and Renewal form. The department chair then transmits his or her report to, and confers with, the faculty member.
Report transmittal
+ 3 days
Faculty Signatures: The faculty member signs the reports from PEC and department chair, acknowledging content but not necessarily agreement.
Report signing +
10 days
Optional Rebuttal: The faculty member may submit a rebuttal of the PEC and/or department chair's report, if desired, to the Dean of the faculty member's school or college.
November 15 Report Submission: Department chair and PEC submit reports to the Dean of the relevant school or college and to the PTC. Any minority PEC report is also submitted. The PTC may request, if they desire, a counter rebuttal or corrected report responding to candidate's rebuttal to PEC or department chair report.
December 1 Dean's Evaluation Report for Promotion and Tenure: The Dean will prepare a Dean's Evaluation Report for each faculty member in his or her school or college being considered for promotion or tenure.
Report
transmittal
+ 3 days
Signing and Returning Dean's Evaluation Report: The faculty member has three (3) working days after receipt of Dean's evaluation to review the evaluation materials, and to sign and return one copy to the Dean.
Report signing +
10 days
Optional Rebuttal of Dean's Evaluation: If the Dean's evaluation disagrees with that of the department chair or PEC, the faculty member may submit a rebuttal of the Dean's evaluation to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs within 10 days after signing the report.
March1 Submission of Dean's Promotion and Tenure Reports: The Dean should submit the Dean's Promotion and Tenure Evaluation Report, attaching all relevant materials, to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.
  PTC Recommendation: The PTC chair submits the Committee's report to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, with a copy to the faculty member. Any PTC minority report is also submitted to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.
Report transmittal
+ 10 days
Optional rebuttal to the PTC Report: If the PTC report is unfavorable, the faculty member may, within 10 days of receiving the report, submit a rebuttal to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.
May 1 The Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs sends his or her recommendation for promotion and/or tenure to the Chancellor.
May Administrative Report: The Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs sends a report of Chancellor's decision, vote of PTC, and other information to candidate.

Note that promotion decisions are also reviewed by the UNCP Board of Trustees. Tenure decisions are reviewed by both the UNCP Board of Trustees and by the UNC Board of Governors.


Table 3

Calendar of Events for First or Second Year Review

The events listed below are intended as guidelines only; dates are approximate and may be altered as conditions warrant. Specific policies and procedures are found in the full Faculty Evaluation Plan.

DATE EVENT OR DOCUMENT
September 7 Notification: The department chair notifies the faculty member, the Dean of the relevant school or college, and the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs that the evaluation is to be conducted.
September 21 Submission of Materials: The faculty member presents the department chair with documents required, including the Peer Evaluation Committee (PEC) Nomination Form.
September 30 PEC Formation: The department chair announces make-up of PEC.
October Student Evaluations: The faculty member collects student evaluations of their courses.
October 7-December 1 Transmittal of Evaluation Materials: The department chair gives the PEC chair the candidate's materials.
  Classroom Observations: The department chair and members of PEC carry out classroom observations.
  PEC Evaluation: The PEC deliberates on all materials, observations, etc., to reach a recommendation. A report is drafted and the PEC Tenure, Promotion and Renewal Form is completed. The PEC transmits its report to the faculty member
  Chair's Evaluation: The department chair prepares an independent report and completes the Tenure, Promotion, and Renewal form. The department chair then transmits his or her report to, and confers with, the faculty member.
Report transmittal +
3 days
Faculty Signatures: The faculty member signs the reports from PEC and department chair, acknowledging content but not necessarily agreement.
Report signing +
10 days
Optional Rebuttal: The faculty member may submit a rebuttal of the PEC and/or department chair's report, if desired, to the Dean of the faculty member's school or college.
December 1 Report Submission: Department chair and PEC submit reports to the Dean of the relevant school or college. Any minority PEC report is also submitted.
December 15 Dean's Evaluation Report: The Dean will prepare a Dean's Evaluation Report for each member in his or her school or college undergoing first- or second-year review, and complete the Dean's Evaluation Report Form for each faculty member being evaluated.
Report transmittal + 3 days Signing and Returning Dean's Evaluation Report: The faculty member has three (3) working days after receipt of Dean's evaluation to review the evaluation materials, and to sign and return one copy to the Dean.
Report signing + 10 days Optional Rebuttal of Dean's Evaluation: If the Dean's evaluation disagrees with that of the department chair or the PEC, the faculty member may submit a rebuttal of the Dean's evaluation to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs within10 days after signing the report when there are areas of disagreement.
  Submission of Dean's Reports: The Dean is to submit the Dean's Evaluation Report, attaching all materials presented, to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.
Jan 15 Reappointment Decision: Following procedures in the UNCP Tenure Regulations, after conferring with the faculty member's department chair, with the Dean of the faculty member's school or college, and with the PTC, the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs decides whether to reappoint the faculty member recommendation to Chancellor (Section 3-3.C.2). The Provost and Vice Chancellor reports the decision to the Chancellor for information.
February 15 Notification of Decision: By Feb 15 of the first year, if the decision is not to reappoint an Assistant or Associate Professor, the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs provides written notice (Section 3-3.B.2,
-3, -4.)
May 15 Notification of Decision: By May 15 of the second year of the probationary appointment, if the decision is not to reappoint Professor, the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs provides written notice; Section 3-3.B.2, -3, -4.


Table 4
Typical Calendar of Events for Post-Tenure Review

The events listed below are intended as guidelines only; dates are approximate and may be altered as conditions warrant. Specific policies and procedures are found elsewhere in this document and in the full UNCP Faculty Evaluation Model.

DATE EVENT OR DOCUMENT
April 15 Notification: Department chair notifies faculty member that the post-tenure review process will occur during the following academic year.
Sept. 21 Submission of Materials: The faculty member presents the department chair with the required documents. [Fn.10 In the initial stages of this process, these various materials might be collected from a variety of sources (the faculty member's own copies, copies in the possession of the department chair, and/or copies in the possession of the Office of Academic Affairs).]
Sept. 30 PEC Formation: The department chair announces the composition of the Peer Evaluation Committee (PEC).
Oct. 7 The Peer Evaluation Committee is oriented to the Post-Tenure Review process, elects a chair, and is given access to the required documents.
Optional classroom observations (when deemed appropriate) are carried out by department chair and members of the Peer Evaluation Committee.
Nov. 30 PEC report transmitted to faculty member.
Nov. 30 Department chair report transmitted to faculty member.
Report trans-
mittal + 3 days
Faculty member being evaluated signs/dates form from PEC/department chair
Report trans-
mittal + 10 days
[Optional] Faculty member being evaluated submits rebuttal to report(s).
Jan. 15 Department chair, PEC submit reports to Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.
  Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs confers with the department chair concerning outcome of evaluation process.
Feb. 15 If necessary, in consultation with the faculty member being evaluated, the department chair will draw up an individual development or career plan including specific steps designed to lead to improvement, a specified time line in which this improvement is expected to occur, and a clear statement of consequences should improvement not occur within the designated time line. This plan will then be submitted to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.
March 15 Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs gives recommendations to Chancellor.

[Academic Affairs HomePage] [Return to Table of Contents]

Last updated: August 24, 2000