Click here to take survey on the FPES Draft Document

THE HOWARD UNIVERSITY FACULTY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEM

 Committee Members

Ramesh Chawla
Don Coleman, Chair (fall semester 2007)
Denver D’Rozario
Leslie T. Fenwick
Kimberley Freeman
James H. Johnson, Jr.
George Littleton
George Middendorf
Joseph Reidy, ex officio
William Spriggs
Veronica Thomas
Eric Walters

Submitted to the Office of the Provost

February 5, 2008

INTRODUCTION

Assessment and evaluation of faculty performance is critical to institutional vitality and renewal. Achieving excellence in faculty performance involves, at a basic level, commitment from various university constituencies. Clearly, faculty must strive to reach a high level of productivity in instruction, research, and service commensurate with the University’s mission and the agreed upon goals and objectives of their departments/Schools/Colleges. Equally important, the University must allocate all necessary resources to support a teaching and learning environment that is conducive to scholarly productivity. In keeping with the University’s mission as a comprehensive research institution, resources must be strategically and regularly disbursed to advance the instruction, research, and service activities and aspirations of faculty. Further, the University has an obligation to ensure that an appropriate and responsive administrative infrastructure exists to continuously support the Faculty Performance Evaluation System (FPES) and that its concomitant procedures are uniform and user-friendly. This document establishes procedures and guidelines for the implementation of a comprehensive University faculty performance evaluation system.

The purpose of the FPES is to evaluate faculty performance in instruction, research, and service using clearly stated goals and criteria. (In the FPES, the professional development domain is subsumed under instruction and research.) The FPES will also:

• provide meaningful feedback to all full-time faculty in order to promote professional growth and development;
• provide faculty performance data which will contribute to decisionnmaking about differentiation in compensation increases; and
• provide faculty performance data that may be used to supplement personnel decisions.

Further, the FPES seeks to:

• promote both the University’s mission and faculty professional accomplishments; and
• ensure that the processes and procedures governing faculty performance evaluation for compensation increases are fair, transparent, and communicate accurate and reliable information about faculty performance in instruction, research, and professional service.

STANDARDS OF OPERATION

This section delineates a set of principles which guide the continuous development and implementation of the FPES.

1. Performance related salary increases for faculty are based on annual evaluations using clearly stated goals and criteria. Toward this end, Howard University provides competitive faculty compensation consistent with its standing as a comprehensive research university and the premier HBCU.
2. The principles of the FPES complement and are consistent with the Howard UniversityFaculty Handbook, the Faculty Workload Policy, and other relevant university policies.
3. Faculty and administrators receive training to use and apply FPES.
4. FPES utilizes the Rubric for Evaluation of Faculty in Instruction, Research and Service (see Appendix A) in order to attain a consistent application of a predetermined set of values in the interpretation of faculty productivity data.*
   Ratings of faculty performance are to be justified at every level of review to ensure a reasonable level of consistency and objectivity.
5. Faculty receive detailed feedback about their performance and have the opportunity to appeal the evaluation. The appeal process begins with the dean of the College/School.

The FPES undergoes periodic reviews and updates by the faculty, Office of the Provost, Senior Vice President for Health Sciences, and other appropriately designated University administrators for alignment with current

( * Footnote: As discussed in Arreola, R. A. (2007). Developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation system, third edition. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc.)

FACULTY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROCESS

The primary responsibility of full-time faculty is dedication to the instructional, research, and service goals of Howard University. Toward this end, the principles of the faculty performance evaluation process are consistent with existing faculty review processes outlined in the Howard University Faculty Handbook and Faculty Workload Policy.

Annually, the faculty member meets with his or her respective department chair to discuss goals and negotiate a workload agreement for the next academic year. The faculty member and chairperson decide the percentage of effort the faculty member will dedicate to each of the three major areas of faculty responsibility: instruction, research, and service. Faculty are provided specific information (“feed forward”) by the department chair regarding how their workload complements department, School/College, and University goals. Accordingly, the subsequent performance evaluation is based, in large part, on the faculty member’s attainment of the specified goals of the workload. The work of the faculty member may vary from the actual workload document due to unanticipated responsibilities. These additional accomplishments are considered in the evaluation. Faculty are discouraged from strictly “working to the load” to the detriment of contributing fully to the multiple dimensions of faculty and University life.

Faculty performance should be evaluated with specific attention to individual faculty workloads as these are anticipated to vary with regard to instruction, research, and service contributions both among members of a unit and from year to year for individuals. While all faculty members are expected to make contributions in the areas of instruction, research, and service, the expectations for individual faculty may vary. Thus, all faculty are not expected to attain the same level of performance in each category. In evaluating a faculty member’s performance, recognition should be given not only to the accomplishments achieved, but also to the constraints and the opportunities affecting performance. Further, it should be recognized that the relative weight given to these areas (instruction, research, service) may differ at different times during a faculty member’s tenure at the University. (For example, department chairs have unique effort distribution and should be evaluated in light of their administrative duties). With this principle in mind, comparisons between and among faculty members within and among Schools/Colleges and departments should be tempered appropriately. Ultimately, Schools/Colleges assume responsibility for defining the indicators for performance in instruction, research, and service for their faculty members. In this regard, special attention should be devoted to contextualizing performance indicators and ensuring that indicators are sensitive to cycles that govern research publications, curriculum innovations (e.g. development of new courses and program areas), and fulfillment of professional service commitments.

“Extraordinary” activities, such as participating on university committees requiring heavy workload, should be given appropriate weight in the evaluation. The metrics for this activity will be defined by each School/College. Additionally, the FPES allows for the evaluation of special activities (such as interdisciplinary and joint appointments) in a separate category. The metrics for this activity will be defined by each School/College.

The evaluation of faculty performance is a peer review process that is also structured to engage various administrative levels of the department, School/College, and University. Much like the appointment, tenure/promotion processes, the evaluation of the faculty member’s performance is forwarded for review and recommendation to the following: department chair, department APT committee, schoolwide APT committee, dean, and provost and chief academic officer.

FPES MEASURES AND METRICS

This section presents the quantitative measures and quality indicators for instruction, research, and service. Appendices B, C, and D provide a detailed listing of the various sources of evidence for each domain.

Measures for Instruction

According to the Faculty Workload Policy, the criteria for determining instructional activity include all activities directly related to teaching. The unit of measurement is time, which usually is quantified in clock hours. Examples of measurement and metrics include:

Number of hours in class (laboratory, clinic, studio)
Number of hours required for preparation
Number of hours required for evaluation of student knowledge
Number of hours devoted to student consultation
Number of hours devoted to individual instruction/tutoring, thesis/dissertation advisement
Number of hours devoted to curriculum development

Measures for Research

According to the Faculty Workload Policy, the criteria for determining “research activity” include all activities directly related to creative and scholarly endeavors. Examples of measurement and metrics include:

Number of productions (papers, books, grant proposals, grants funded, reviews, presentations, performances, exhibits)
Number of memberships on dissertation/thesis research committees
Size (in dollars awarded) of research grants or contracts
Numbers of research and/or training grant applications to funding agencies
Number of grants received
Number of citations and references
Number of peer-reviewed papers, presentations, performances, exhibits
Number of awards, prizes, distinguished fellowships appointments, invited lectures or presentations
Number of dissertation/thesis committees chaired
Number of MS/MA students trained/graduated in the year
Number of PhD students trained/graduated in the year

Measures for Service

According to the Faculty Workload Policy, service refers to activities not related to instruction, research, or professional development. Examples of measurement and metrics of University service include:

The number of department, school, or university committee memberships
The number of department, school, or university committees chaired
The time devoted to department, school, or university administration
The time devoted to service as advisor to student organizations

Public service refers to faculty activities outside of the University. Examples of measurement and metrics include:
The number of community, state, or national organizational committees
The number (and level) of offices/positions in professional organizations
The number (and level) of public offices

SCORING RUBRIC FOR EVALUATION OF FACULTY PERFORMANCE

The Rubric for Evaluation of Faculty in Instruction, Research and Service provides general guidance for assessing faculty performance along a task-specific set of criteria. It includes descriptors of what is generally expected at each predetermined level of performance. Ultimately, Schools/colleges will be responsible for defining the expectation for “unsatisfactory,” “minimal,” “satisfactory,” “high,” and “exemplary” performance for their faculty members. As such, units may choose to add other measurable indicators to the rubric as appropriate to their School/College or division. Faculty members must be aware of unit expectations for performance as indicated in the Rubric for Evaluation of Faculty in Instruction, Research and Service.

Description of Scoring Metric

The scoring rubric for evaluating faculty performance contains general descriptors of faculty performance characterized as (1) Unsatisfactory, (2) Minimal, (3) Satisfactory,

4) High, and (5) Exemplary. Scores for each evaluation area range from 1-5, where 5 indicates exemplary performance (i.e. achievement in most, if not all, categories within a section). For example, a maximum score in scholarly activity should indicate excellence in publishing, grants, and training activities. See Appendix A for a draft of the detailed scoring rubric.

Feasibility and Practicality of Uniformity Among Units and All Faculty

All faculty members should be rated across the three domains (instruction, research, service) relative to their rank and the negotiated workload. However, variation might occur in how the categories are operationalized as a function of a number of factors such as discipline, faculty rank, and the agreed upon faculty workload contract. For example, expectations for a “high” or “exemplary” performance rating might increase as faculty rank increases. Reviewers may expect a higher level of performance for a full professor to achieve an “exemplary” rating in a particular area in comparison to the performance expectation for an assistant professor to be rated as “exemplary” in that same area.

EVALUATION CALENDAR

In order to facilitate continuous and regular implementation, it is recommended that FPES follow the existing calendar for reappointment/promotion/tenure. The following summarizes submission and notification deadlines and responsibilities.

__________: Deadline for faculty to submit supporting documents to the department chairperson. The supporting documents should provide clear information that supports the faculty member’s contribution to teaching, research, and service that is consistent with the Faculty Workload Policy (01.21.2000)

__________: Deadline for completion of the Rubric for the Evaluation of Faculty in Instruction, Research and Service at the departmental level and notifying candidates in writing of the numerical score from their departmental evaluation. T he department chair will provide recommendations for improving performance (if necessary) and also informs the candidate of the right to request re-evaluation.

__________ : Deadline (prior to referral of file to the Dean) for faculty to appeal to the dean the evaluation by the department chair and/or department APT committee.

___________: Deadline for the department chairperson to submit to the Dean of the School/College (for transmittal to the School/College APT committee) the completed Rubric and supporting documentation along with the written evaluations and score(s) of both the department chairperson and the department APT committee.

__________ : Deadline for faculty candidate to be notified in writing of the evaluation and recommendation(s) of the School/College APT committee and dean regarding faculty performance.

__________ : Deadline for faculty candidate to request (in writing) to the dean a reconsideration of the evaluation by the School/College APT committee and/or dean

__________: Deadline for the dean to communicate to the candidate in writing the final decision from any reconsideration of a negative recommendation at the School/College level.

___________: Date for receipt in the Office of the Provost of the Faculty Performance documentation (including all supporting documentation, recommendations and written evaluations from all prior review levels)