Section 3: Comprehensive Standards
3.7.2 The institution regularly evaluates the effectiveness of each faculty member in accord with published criteria, regardless of contractual or tenured status.
Judgment of Compliance:
Compliance
Narrative/Justification for Judgment of Compliance:
Christopher Newport University is in compliance with this comprehensive standard. Faculty evaluations occur as stated in the University Handbook, Section XI. 8. Evaluation, Promotion, Tenure, and Salary of Instructional Faculty.
a. Introduction
1) The evaluation procedures for decisions concerning retention, promotion, and tenure are predicated on the propositions that peers ought to have first hand familiarity with the accomplishments, limitations, and potential of each faculty member; thus, members of the department and, to a lesser extent, members of related departments are directly involved in an initial recommendation. The dean reviews the recommendation and acts on it from the perspective of academic management. A University committee of members of the faculty provides University wide faculty perspective in its review of all recommendations and forwards its recommendation, together with that of the dean, to the Provost, who makes the final recommendations to the President. The President makes the final decision and, subject to the approval of the Board of Visitors, authorizes a contract reflecting that decision.b. General Standards and Procedures for all Evaluations
1) University wide Standards and Procedures
a) The criteria for retention, promotion, and tenure are teaching, professional development, and service. At Christopher Newport University the first, teaching, is of paramount importance, and poor teaching cannot be redeemed by superiority in the other two areas.
An annual evaluation of all faculty is conducted by the deans and provost in accordance with the PEER REVIEW, ANNUAL EVALUATION, AND MERIT EVALUATION CALENDAR published and distributed each year by the Provost and University Handbook Section XI.8.b.5) Step-by-Step Procedure for Annual Evaluation of Faculty Members. Section XI.8.b.5)f) outlines the procedure for tenured faculty receiving an unsatisfactory rating in the annual evaluation process.
The annual review process requires faculty to submit an activities report (form EVAL-6), copies of the IDEA Student Ratings of Instructors report for the previous year and any other standard dossier materials specified by the chair, dean, or provost. The EVAL-6 provides the starting point for the annual evaluation and includes activities in the three major areas of evaluation – teaching, professional development, and service. The EVAL-6 and other materials are submitted to the department chair, who records his/her evaluation of the faculty member on the Annual Review of Faculty: EVAL-AR form. Teaching, Professional Service, Scholarship and Research, and Overall Performance must be rated either satisfactory or unsatisfactory. A satisfactory rating must then be rated on a four point scale, four equaling truly outstanding and one equaling fair. The chair may include a recommendation for strengthening the evaluee's contribution to the university. The EVAL-AR, EVAL-6 and other materials are forwarded to the dean.
The dean reviews the EVAL-6, dossier, department chair's evaluation and recommendation and records his or her evaluation on the EVAL-AR, rating teaching, professional development, and service as satisfactory or unsatisfactory and rating satisfactory performance on the same four point scale. The dean makes recommendations for strengthening the evaluee's contribution and forwards the EVAL-AR along with the EVAL-6 and all other materials to the provost. The provost approves or disapproves the dean's recommendation, forms and submits a final recommendation to the president.
Peer groups are used for decisions of retention of probationary faculty, all promotions and tenure. Tenured faculty undergo performance review in the peer group format every 6th year during the spring semester. The step by step procedure for peer review is located in Section XI.8.b.4) of the University Handbook.
Peer review requires the evaluee to submit the Annual Activities Report (EVAL-6) and an updated dossier to the peer group chair. The peer group records its recommendation on the Peer Group Recommendation and Summary Statement (form EVAL-7) and forwards it, the EVAL-6, and the dossier to the dean. The dean reviews the dossier and other materials and completes the Summary of Administration Action on Instructional Faculty Evaluation (form EVAL-8) and forwards it, the EVAL-6, EVAL-7, dossier and other materials to the provost. The provost refers all of the materials to the Faculty Review Committee (FRC), a standing committee of the university comprising four tenured members of the faculty elected by the faculty and four tenured members of the faculty appointed by the provost. The committee reviews the recommendations of the academic departments and deans on standards for evaluation and for reviewing and making recommendations to the provost on the matters of retention, promotion, tenure, and merit increases. The FRC reviews the dossier and other materials and records its recommendation on the EVAL-8, Summary of Administration Action on Instructional Faculty Evaluation.
The provost reviews the dossier and associated documents, forms a final recommendation, completes the appropriate section of the EVAL-8 and forwards it and all other materials to the president for review. The president completes the appropriate section of the EVAL-8. For those positive presidential decisions requiring action by the Board of Visitors, a resolution is prepared for the approval of the president and action by the Board.
Support Documentation:
University Handbook, Section XI.8.b.4) and 5)
University Handbook, Section XVII.C.3.a.
Faculty Evaluation Calendar (EVAL-1)
EVAL-5 – Constitution of Peer Group
EVAL-6 – Professional Activities Report
EVAL-7 – Peer Group Recommendation
EVAL-8 – Administrative Action
EVAL-AR – Annual Review of Faculty
EVAL-10 – Dossier Checklist
Additional Live Web Resources:
None