4A-11 SECTION 11. EVALUATION OF DEPARTMENT CHAIRS

A written annual evaluation report is prepared and presented 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's annual self-evaluations 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 Office for Academic Affairs considers 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-11.1 Annual Evaluations of Faculty Responsibilities

Each department chair is evaluated annually 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 Office for Academic Affairs (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.

4A-11.2 Evaluation of Chairís 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 procedures in Section 4A-8, except that the Office for Academic Affairs 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 Office for Academic Affairs. 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 chairís 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) recognizing and rewarding exemplary faculty performance, 2) continuing tenure for faculty whose work is found satisfactory, 3) providing a clear plan and a specified time line of not more than three academic years for improvement of performance of faculty found deficient, and 4) for those whose performance remains deficient, 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 (distinguished, very good, adequate, and deficient).[UNCP Faculty Handbook, Figure 4A.6.) This annual review includes a(n) 1) Self-Evaluation Report, 2) Student Evaluation Report, 3) Chair's Evaluation Report, 4) Annual Merit Salary Increase Recommendation, and 5) recommendation of the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.[UNCP Faculty Handbook, 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[UNC Faculty Handbook; 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 department chairs or Peer Evaluation Committees.

C. With regard to outcomes requiring more than simple notification on the part of those involved in the post-tenure review process (see Sections 4A-12.3 and 4A-12.4 below), in cases where a faculty member's performance is deemed exemplary (i.e., "distinguished" in terms of the four-category Standard Performance Rating Scale noted in the previous paragraph), that faculty member's performance will be recognized/rewarded in one or more of the following ways: 1) a letter of commendation, written by the Chair of the Department, will be placed in the faculty member's personnel file housed in the Office for Academic Affairs; 2) the faculty member will be recommended by the Chair of the Department for consideration by the University Awards Committee for the award deemed most appropriate (UNC Board of Governors' Award for Excellence in Teaching; UNCP Teaching Award, Adolph L. Dial Endowed Award for Scholarship/Creative Work; Adolph L. Dial Endowed Award for Community Service);[See UNCP Faculty Handbook, Section 4-1.16.] 3) the faculty member will receive a $300.00 professional development stipend to cover such expenses as those associated with professional travel, professional association memberships, and the purchase of professional supplies and resources (books, computer hardware/software, etc.); and/or 4) the faculty member will be recommended for priority consideration by the UNCP Faculty research and Development Committee for a one semester three-hour reassignment of teaching load[Proposals resulting from such recommendations will be handled in the usual manner]. In situations where a faculty member has received a rating of "deficient," 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.

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 UNCP Faculty Handbook, 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/Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs

The department chair (Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs 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 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 Peer Evaluation Committee and department chair (Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs for department chairs) 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).

F. 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 "Deficient," and the 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) recognizing and rewarding exemplary faculty performance, 2) continuing tenure for faculty whose work is found satisfactory, 3) providing a clear plan and a specified time line of not more than three academic years for improvement of performance of faculty found deficient, and 4) for those whose performance remains deficient, providing for the imposition of appropriate sanctions, which may 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 (Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs in the case of department chairs), 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 (Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs for department chairs) (see Calendar of Events below). The faculty member will subsequently submit to his/her department chair (Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs for department chairs) a copy of 1) his/her Self Evaluations for the previous five years, 2) his/her Student Evaluations summaries for the previous five years, 3) his/her Chair Evaluations for the previous five years, 4) any additional information since the last annual evaluation that is deemed pertinent, and 5) a completed copy of the Peer Evaluation Nomination Form (Figure 4A.2 of the UNCP Faculty Handbook).[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 the department chair, and/or copies in the possession of the Office for Academic Affairs).] The department chair then 1) appoints three faculty members to the Peer Evaluation Committee in the manner described in the UNCP Faculty Handbook, 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 (Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs 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 Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. These reports, based on the various documents that have been submitted, will include a ranking in terms of the Standard Performance Rating Scale described above and a narrative justification. In the case of the Peer Evaluation Committee's report, should the ranking indicate "distinguished" performance, the Committee has the option of suggesting what it feels might be an appropriate "reward" (see Section 4A-12.2 above). If the ranking indicates "deficient" 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/department) directly to the Office for Academic Affairs.

E. Upon receipt of these two reports, the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs must take one of the following actions. 1) If the ranking on both reports indicates "distinguished" performance, the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, in consultation with the department chair (Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Chairs in the case of department chairs), will recommend to the Chancellor one or more of the four "rewards" outlined in Section IIC of this document. This recommendation will also be sent to the faculty member being evaluated. 2) If the ranking on both reports indicates "deficient" performance, the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs will communicate this information in writing to the faculty member, the department chair (Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Chairs in the case of department chairs), and the Chancellor. It will be the department's chair's (Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs in the case of department chairs) responsibility, in collaboration with the faculty member being evaluated, to draw up an individual development or career plan including specific steps designed to lead to improvement, a specified time line of not more than three academic years 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 who will give consideration to the need for institutional resources to support the faculty member's attempts to remove deficiencies. At the conclusion of this time period, the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, in consultation with the Department Chair (Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs for Department Chairs), will determine if the provisions of this plan have been met. If the provisions of this plan have not been met and the required improvement has not occurred, the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs may recommend sanctions to the Chancellor which may include discharge as allowed by The UNC Code (Section 603 (01)). 3) For all other rankings or combination of rankings, the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs will recommend to the Chancellor that no action be taken.

F. 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 is found to be "Deficient" and those deficiencies are not removed 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.

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

A faculty member may work in either or both 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:



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

_______________ ____________________________________________________
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


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: All faculty scheduled for student evaluations in the spring semester should conduct these evaluation during April 1 to April 14. For a discussion of which faculty are scheduled for spring semester evaluations, please see Section 47-2 C for discussion of the schedule of student evaluations. Department chair is responsible for compiling a summary of student evaluations.
April 14 Submission of Self-Evaluation Report: A faculty member should submit their Self-Evaluation Report to the department chair by April 14 (Section 4A-7.1).
April 14-
May 15
Annual Chairís 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).

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.

Optional Rebuttal of Chair's Evaluation: The faculty member may submit a rebuttal of the Chair's annual evaluation to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs within 10 days after signing the report when there are areas of disagreement.
May 15 Submission of Chair's Annual Reports: The department chair should submit 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 to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs by May 15.
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
Apr 1-14 Spring Student Evaluation: Faculty members collect student evaluations (varies by surname, year-to-year).
Aug 21 Early Review Petition: The faculty member petitions for early review, if desired.
Sept 7 Evaluation Announcement: The department chair notifies faculty member and the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs of the major evaluation.
Sept 21 Submission of Materials: The faculty member presents the department chair with documents required.
Sept 30 PEC Formation: The department chair announces the composition of the Peer Evaluation Committee (PEC).
Oct 7 External Review Initiation: If desired, external review of scholarly/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 Report: The PEC agrees on a recommendation and drafts a report.
  Department Chair Report: The department chair writes and transmits his/her report to, and confers with, faculty member under review.
Report transmittal
+ 3 days
Faculty Signatures: The faculty member signs the reports from PEC and department chair, acknowledging content but not necessarily agreement.
Report transmittal + 10 days Optional Rebuttal: The faculty member may submit a rebuttal to the PEC and/or department chair's report, if desired.
Nov 15 Report Submission: Department chair and PEC submit reports to Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. Minority PEC report (if any) submitted to Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. The Promotion and Tenure Committee (PTC) requests, if they desire, a counter rebuttal or corrected report responding to candidate's rebuttal to PEC or department chair report.
Mar 1 PTC Recommendation: The PTC chair submits the Committee's report to Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. PTC minority report, if any, submitted to Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs sends his/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.


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
Sept 21 Faculty member presents department chair with documents required.
Sept 30 Department chair announces make-up of Peer Evaluation Committee (PEC).
Oct 7

Department chair gives PEC chair candidate's materials.

Classroom observations carried out by department chair, members of PEC.

Reports of classroom observations by PEC members submitted.

PEC deliberation on all materials, observations, etc., to reach a recommendation.

PEC report transmitted to faculty member.

Department chair transmits report to, confers with faculty member.

Report transmittal + 3 days Faculty member signs forms from PEC, department chair.
Report transmittal + 10 days [OPTIONAL] Faculty member submits rebuttal to report(s).
Jan 15

Department chair, PEC submit reports to Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. Optional Minority PEC report submitted to Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.

Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs gives recommendation to Chancellor (HB 3-3.C.1), who makes the final decision (HB 3-3.C.1).

Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs informs candidate of final decision; HB 3-3.C.2. Written notice provided if reappointed.

Feb 15 By Feb 15 (Assistant or Associate Professor) of the first year or May 15 of the second year of the probationary appointment (Professor), if the decision is not to reappoint, the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs provides written notice; HB 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.[This Calendar of Events might have to be significantly modified for the first year that this plan is implemented (1998-1999).]

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-     Faculty member being evaluated signs/dates form from PEC/department chair
mittal + 3 days

Report trans-      [Optional] Faculty member being evaluated submits rebuttal to report(s).
mittal + 10 days

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: July 29, 1999