4.2.c. Formal procedures for evaluating faculty competence and performance
Faculty competence and performance are essential to the School’s ability to carry out its mission. To ensure quality performance, the School has established processes for regular faculty evaluations, including:
The annual performance review; and
Promotion and tenure reviews
Annual performance reviews
Tenured and tenure-track faculty
Division Heads conduct annual performance evaluations with all tenured and tenure-track faculty as the basis for merit salary increases. Student evaluations also are important in determining merit increases. In addition to reviewing past performance, Division Heads and faculty members use the review to establish goals for the coming year. Salary increase recommendations are forwarded to the Dean for review and approval.
Under University policy, criteria for annual performance evaluations, which encompass teaching, research and service, must be developed by the Division Heads in consultation with faculty members. Therefore, each division has established faculty performance evaluation criteria. Specific information is requested regarding teaching of academic courses, advising of students, grantsmanship, publications, local, national/international service (both professional and administrative), and a summary of activities and accomplishments, current and proposed. Documentation is assembled by each faculty member prior to a personal discussion with the respective division head.
Contract faculty
Division Heads also conduct performance evaluations annually with all contract faculty to determine merit salary increases. While tenure-track and tenured faculty are reviewed on accomplishments spanning the School’s core activities of research, education and service, contract faculty are measured against specific expectations spelled out in their contracts – and they are assessed only in the specific area of focus (teaching or research) for which they were hired.
Community and adjunct faculty
The performance of adjunct faculty, who are appointed for a one-year term, is evaluated more informally. At the time of engagement, adjunct faculty members and Division Heads agree on specific expectations and assignments. After each term, an adjunct faculty member’s continuation is determined by on-going need for his or her expertise and feedback from students and faculty colleagues.
Promotion and Tenure Reviews
Before they receive tenure, primary faculty members are reviewed annually under terms of the School’s Academic Appointment, Promotion and Tenure (APT) policy. (Even though they are not eligible for tenure, contract faculty are also evaluated for promotion as qualified.) Recommendations for promotion from assistant professor to associate professor and from associate professor to professor are made by the APT Committee to the Dean, who forwards the documentation for consideration by the Academic Health Center and the University.
The University’s post-tenure review process, which governs that of the School, builds upon annual reviews to sustain and enhance faculty performance in teaching, research and service. It is also intended to assist faculty members who may have difficulty achieving established expectations.
Once faculty members are tenured, their performance is evaluated every five years by the APT Committee. In addition, a Division Head may, at the time of a faculty member’s annual review, ask him or her to submit documentation to the APT Committee for screening for “substantial substandard performance.” The documentation of faculty members who fail the APT Committee review is passed to the Dean, who may then decide to pursue the special review process described in the University’s Rules and Procedures for Annual and Special Post-Tenure Review.
4.2.d. Student course evaluation and evaluation of teaching effectiveness
The content and quality of courses and teaching effectiveness are of central importance to the School’s education objectives. In fact, teaching receives strong emphasis in the faculty promotion and tenure process: “The candidate [for promotion] should be clearly recognized for his/her impact and effectiveness as a teacher and adviser.”
Student evaluations, conducted at the conclusion of every course, provide valuable feedback on courses and teaching effectiveness – and are taken seriously by the School and faculty. Safeguards are in place to protect student anonymity and prevent faculty from altering evaluation results.
Currently, courses are evaluated using Form D, the Student Evaluation of Teaching, a standard form supplied by the University’s Measurement Services Office. An online version of the form is also available for evaluating distance education and/or scheduled courses. Use of the online form is expected to increase.
Course evaluation proceeds as follows:
The School’s Student Services Center provides the primary course instructor with the University’s Form D and a comment sheet developed by the School, which asks specific questions related to teaching methods, instructor and/or TA availability, course subject matter, reading material and text, performance requirements (attendance, papers, discussion, tests, presentations), grading methods and guest instructors.
Instructions are provided to instructors and students to ensure that the evaluation process is followed and forms are completed correctly. Students concerned that they may be linked to their comments may ask a major coordinator to forward their comments confidentially, bring a typed sheet of comments to the Student Services Center or complete the comment sheet in the Student Services Center where a typewriter is available.
On the last day of class, the instructor leaves the room and the class elects a representative to collect and return completed evaluations to the Student Services Center. To ensure the integrity of the process, evaluation forms are held in the Student Services Center until official grades have been submitted. Then, the Form Ds are sent for electronic tabulation to the Office of Measurement Services, which, in turn, forwards the official results to the Student Services Center and the course instructor(s). For online evaluations, the process follows the same steps after official grades are submitted.
Copies of the School’s core course evaluations are retained by the Student Services Center and are reviewed by the Educational Policy Committee. The comment sheets go to the course instructor(s).
4.2.e. Community service activities in the promotion and tenure process
The Promotion and Tenure process requires demonstrated achievement in teaching, research and professional service. The process requires faculty members to provide cumulative documentation of service activities, such as roles in professional organizations, service in governmental organizations, professional community service, presentations to community groups and participation on University and School committees.
Service aimed at improving public health is particularly valued as a component of activities for promotion and tenure. For example, in the case of promotion to full professor, service is not only an important supplementary component, but a candidate should also have contributed significantly to major policy formation and had a demonstrated impact in his/her field within the framework of professionally-related community activities. The candidate should also have contributed to Major, Division, School and University functions as service to the academy, as well as to professional organizations and to local, state, national or international communities.
4.2.f. This criterion is met.
Strengths
The University, School and its Divisions communicate and make easily accessible the many policies and procedures related to faculty and their activities.
Ongoing professional development is supported by the School and the University, and development opportunities are communicated and made accessible to faculty.
Rigorous evaluation of faculty competence and performance occurs annually for contract, adjunct and tenure-track faculty. Tenured faculty are evaluated every five years.
Student evaluations of courses and teaching effectiveness are taken seriously by the School and faculty and used to review and revise program offerings.
Achievement in professional service is an important consideration in decisions regarding promotion and/or tenure.
Weaknesses
The School currently has no easy-to-use data collection system by which to track faculty or student service.
Requirements for faculty service to the community (engagement) are not fully enumerated in performance and promotion and tenure expectations and are currently under review University-wide.
Recommendations
Develop a service reporting system that faculty find easy to access and use.
Enumerate community service as a valued performance criteria and a value that defines the culture of an engaged School. The School is currently an active participant in the University-wide review of tenure code for such enumeration.
Return to: School of Public Health : Academic Health Center : myU : U of M Home
