GENERAL INFORMATION FOR ALL FACULTY 

Evaluating colleagues is one of the most important and most difficult tasks that we as faculty members are called upon to perform. Our evaluation decisions determine the quality of the department, school, or program and the university for many years to come. This document is designed to help you through the evaluation process. However, it does not cover every feature of our evaluation system. Please read it in conjunction with Chapters III and IV of the Faculty Code, including interpretations contained in the Code appendix, and with the statement of evaluation criteria and standards for your department, school, or program.

The nature of evaluation at Puget Sound. The evaluation process is both formative and summative; in other words, an evaluation is a time both for constructive feedback and for an evaluative judgment of a colleague’s performance. Departmental colleague letters and deliberative summary letters that only forward glowing conclusions without offering honest and appropriate feedback in light of articulated departmental expectations, particularly for faculty members who are still advancing on pathways to tenure and promotion, may be missed opportunities to support those colleagues toward satisfying and productive careers at Puget Sound. This is particularly important when there are areas of improvement that are glossed over or left unaddressed. Furthermore, departmental evaluations that affirm an evaluee as “stellar” without rigorous consideration of evidence and reasonable expectations may send confusing signals to junior colleagues. 

When faculty are evaluated. Faculty members are evaluated before a decision to promote, to grant or deny tenure, or to not reappoint an untenured tenure-line faculty member. Faculty members without tenure are evaluated by their head officer at the conclusion of their first and second years of appointment. Instructors, assistant professors, and associate professors are normally evaluated every three years, and professors are normally evaluated every five years. (See Faculty Code, Chapter III, Section 2.) Professors at any year of service in that rank and three-year associate professors may elect, with the concurrence of their head officer and the Provost, to undergo an alternative “streamlined” review as specified in the Faculty Code, Chapter III, Section 5. 

Instructors who have served 17 years or more in that rank may elect, with the concurrence of their head officer and the Provost, to alternate full and alternative “streamlined” reviews. (See Faculty Code, Chapter III, Section 5.) 

Whomever calls for the full review should inform the other involved parties one year prior to the semester in which the evaluation is scheduled. 

Delaying an evaluation. Effective 2015-2016, delays to evaluation automatically occur if faculty are granted leave under the Faculty Medical Leave and Disability Policies; effective 2016-2017, if the approved leave is six weeks or more, the length of the evaluation delay is one year. Please read that policy for provisions regarding how to “opt out” from an automatic delay. 

The Provost has discretionary authority, in select additional situations, to grant a faculty member’s request to delay an evaluation (interpretation of the Faculty Code, Chapter III, Section 2). A request for a delay in evaluation is to be submitted in writing to the department chair. The chair makes a recommendation to the Provost, who reviews the request and approves the delay when circumstances warrant. Whenever possible, faculty members should anticipate the need for a delayed evaluation, take steps to ensure that student evaluations are administered as required, and seek the recommendation of the department chair and the approval of the Provost well in advance of the time for the normally scheduled evaluation.

All delayed reviews should be treated procedurally in the same manner as regularly scheduled reviews and files shall be evaluated without prejudice as if the work were done in the normal period of service.

Departmental evaluation standards and criteria. The faculty of each department, school, or program have been asked to affirm collectively an intention to apply high standards to the evaluation of teaching, professional growth, advising, and university service. These standards are stated in the department, school, or program evaluation guidelines in clearly identifiable criteria for that department, school, or program (Faculty Code, Chapter III, Section 3b), consistent with university criteria and standards. Evaluations should therefore be specific to these department, school, or program guidelines. Newly approved departmental criteria for evaluation, tenure, and promotion normally take effect at the beginning of the next academic year following PSC approval. Faculty undergoing evaluation may choose to use either the newly approved departmental evaluation standards or the most recent prior version of their department's evaluation standards, so long as the most recent prior version was in effect on the date that the faculty member's tenure-line or ongoing clinical-line appointment begins. Departmental evaluation standards are available online.

University evaluation standards. The Professional Standards Committee has also prepared a document, “University Evaluation Standards,” elaborating upon the categories of evaluation under the Code as required in Chapter III, Section 3a. That document is available on the university web page. Please note as well the statement in the Faculty Code that the provisions of Chapter I, Part B (Categories of the Faculty) and Part C (Role of the Faculty) shall serve as fundamental definitions of faculty responsibility (Chapter III, Section 3c). Adjuncts and visiting faculty do not participate in faculty evaluations (Interpretation of Chapter III, Section 4, “The Role of ‘Colleagues’ in the Evaluation Process”).

Ethical or other grievances that arise or may be raised during evaluation of faculty. As indicated in the Faculty Code, Chapter III, Section 4, the evaluation process is designed to provide a substantial body of credible evidence in writing as the basis for a fair and impartial review. Moreover, “the evaluation process should be fair and ensure that adequate consideration is given to the faculty member involved. Fairness and adequate consideration shall be achieved consistent with the criteria and procedures outlined in Chapter III, Sections 2-4.” Note that Chapter III, Section 4.f. requires that if, during an evaluation, a question or concern regarding ethical behavior is raised, the faculty member shall initiate a grievance process.

EVALUATION LETTERS

Recommendation on length of evaluation letters. The Faculty Code calls for colleagues "to make substantive assessments of evaluee performance." Substantive review need not imply a long letter. Duly recognizing that circumstances and situations may vary, the PSC – with the support of the FAC – strongly encourages colleagues to use 12-point font and to observe the following length guidelines.

• Letters for candidates up for tenure or promotion or for third-year assistant review: up to 5 single-spaced pages.
• Letters for candidates in all other evaluations: up to 3 single-spaced pages

Importance and content of colleagues’ evaluation letters. Past and present Faculty Advancement Committee members agree that colleague evaluation letters provide essential data in the decision-making process. As faculty members, we are expected to write evaluation letters for departmental colleagues and are encouraged to write letters for colleagues in other departments or schools. The recommendations should be based upon a careful, searching assessment of the evaluee’s past performance and future potential with regard to the best interests of generations of future students, the standards, goals, needs and strengths of the department, and the quality of the university. Letters should be specific and should discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate in the context of the goals and future needs of the department or school and the university for the position. They should be based on professional interactions and material presented by the evaluee. Departmental colleague letters should address all criteria contained in the Faculty Code. Evaluation letters for colleagues outside one’s department or school need not be as extensive. They should, nonetheless, be based on pertinent, professional interactions.

Colleague letters offer perhaps the very best opportunity for a faculty member to enrich the understanding of other colleagues and/or FAC members about the particular strengths or challenges of an evaluee’s file. For example, colleague letters that provide analysis and synthesis regarding teaching effectiveness and forward an assessment of evaluee performance are much more helpful than colleague letters that simply provide a descriptive summary of student feedback materials. Similarly, colleague letters that help readers to understand the quality and significance of scholarly work or the caliber of publication or performance venues are much more helpful than colleague letters that list what can be read on an evaluee’s curriculum vita. The Faculty Code, Chapter III, Section 4.a.(1)(c) calls upon all of us to make substantive assessments of evaluee performance.

Letters in tenure and promotion cases. In writing colleague evaluation letters, please refer to the Faculty Code for the specific criteria for tenure (Chapter III, Section 3d) and for promotion (Chapter III, Section 3e). Although the criteria are similar, they are not identical. Tenure involves a long-term commitment on the part of the university to the faculty member. It is imperative, therefore, that letters concerning candidates for tenure address the evaluee’s past achievements as well as the prospects for continuing growth as a teacher, scholar, and professional colleague. The head officer should remind colleagues that the Faculty Code asks that “the needs of the department, school or program and the university” be addressed in tenure evaluations and that “advising students” be addressed in promotion evaluations.

Letters must be signed documents. The Professional Standards Committee has clarified that a letter for an evaluation file must be a signed document. Both handwritten and electronic signatures are valid.

Open and closed files. Evaluees may choose whether their file will be "open" or "closed." In an "open" file, after the departmental deliberation has concluded and after the evaluee's file has reached the Provost's office, evaluees are permitted to read any evaluation letters written about them (this includes both colleague letters and outside letters submitted to the head officer). In a "closed" file, evaluees do not have access to those letters. Instead, the head officer will provide them with a letter summarizing the contents and themes of the letters written about them.

The Professional Standards Committee has determined that the writer of a letter has a right to know whether the evaluee has chosen to waive access to letters of evaluation. If you are writing for a departmental colleague, the head officer will inform you of the file choice made by the evaluee. If you are writing for a colleague outside of your department or school, the file choice made by the evaluee may be secured from the Provost, the head officer, or the evaluee. The Professional Standards Committee believes that the evaluee’s choice of file status is privileged information and should be treated with discretion. “Open file” does not mean that individual letters written by departmental colleagues are open to review by the entire department; rather “open” means the evaluee may read individual letters.

Choice of evaluation standards version to be used in the evaluation. Faculty members undergoing evaluation will choose to use either the newly approved departmental evaluation standards or the most recent prior version of their department’s evaluation standards, so long as the most recent prior version was in effect on the date that the faculty member’s tenure-line or ongoing clinical-line appointment began. Colleagues writing letters should be aware of which version of the department’s evaluation standards is being used and should reference that in their letters if possible.

Letters from outside the department. The Professional Standards Committee has developed and the Board of Trustees has approved an interpretation of the Faculty Code (Chapter III, Sections 4, a (1) and 4, a (1) (c)) regarding the submission of evaluation letters from persons outside the department during the process of faculty evaluation. The interpretation is meant to clarify the process by which letters from individuals outside the department may be included in the evaluation process. Faculty undergoing evaluation may include any materials they wish in their file, and this is the most reliable way to include letters from outside sources. Evaluees are reminded to request these letters far enough in advance to meet the deadline for submission of their files to departments. It is also possible for the head officer to receive directly letters from persons outside the department. Letters from faculty emeriti are considered outside letters. According to the aforementioned Code interpretation, the head officer must receive these letters at least 10 working days before the deadline for submission of materials to the Provost's Office. To ensure that these letters can be considered as part of the departmental deliberation, departments should not schedule their deliberations earlier than 10 working days before the deadline for submission of materials to the Provost's office.

CLASS VISITS

Although "an ongoing process of class visitation" allows flexible implementation, an evaluation without a reasonable number of class visitations by members of the evaluee's department, school, or program is in violation of the Code.

Interpretation: Faculty Code Chapter III, Section 4a.1.b: Class Visitation (PSC Minutes March 22, 1993):

***********************

Clarification of adequate classroom visits. The PSC affirms that adequate visitation requires at least two visits by each of two faculty members and recommends at least four separate class sessions be visited across more than one semester. The PSC also notes that the head officer is charged with evaluating the number and type of class visitations and determining the degree to which this pattern provides the basis for “adequate consideration.” In turn, the Faculty Advancement Committee judges whether or not this pattern is indeed adequate (Chapter III, Section 4c [4]). Thus, although two class visits made by two faculty members from a given department or program may constitute a minimum number of required visits, this pattern might not necessarily amount to adequate consideration. The final determination of adequacy rests with the head officer and the Faculty Advancement Committee. The PSC affirms that it is the evaluee’s responsibility to ensure that adequate opportunities for evaluators to visit are available, but not to ensure that the visits actually occur.

Ensuring adequate class visitation. We want to avoid a situation in which the Faculty Advancement Committee concludes that the Code has been violated because there has not been a reasonable number of class visits. Given the nature of the evaluation process, the problem of insufficient class visits is easier to prevent than to cure.

Begin class visits early. Head officers should encourage departmental colleagues to anticipate upcoming evaluations and begin class visits early. Doing some class visits a semester or two in advance, rather than waiting until the week before evaluation letters are due, not only would meet responsibilities for adequate visitation but also would go far to ensure that class visits serve their intended purpose—providing ongoing evaluation and feedback.

Evaluation committees. When an evaluation committee is formed, in accord with the Faculty Code, for a joint appointment, interdisciplinary appointment, or an evaluation in a very small department, we urge colleagues to be particularly vigilant about ensuring an on-going pattern of class visits in order to ensure a full basis from which to make an assessment.

List class visits in evaluation letters. Departmental colleagues are expected to include in their individual letters a statement listing the classes they visited and the days they visited them. Including this data enables the head officer and the Advancement Committee to assess how comprehensive the visitation process has been. Head officers are encouraged to provide a summary chart of visited classes in the departmental evaluation letter.

Affirm adequate visitation in departmental summary letter. The head officer’s summary letter to the Faculty Advancement Committee should contain the department’s explicit affirmation that, in its judgment, its members as a group made enough visits to be able to give “adequate consideration” to the evaluee as a teacher. In other words, the summary letter should explain how the department met the standard of a “reasonable number” of class visits, as required by the Faculty Code.

THE DEPARTMENTAL EVALUATION PROCESS

The instructions in this section should be followed for all non-streamlined 3- or 5-year evaluations, and all tenure and promotion evaluations. If you have any questions, please consult the Professional Standards Committee, the Faculty Advancement Committee, or the Provost.

General instructions for the head officer. As stated in the Faculty Code, the responsibility for building a file and documenting a case for tenure or promotion rests upon the individual being evaluated. To ensure a successful evaluation process, the head officer will need to do some background work in the summer and be prepared to move quickly in the fall. The process is a long one and, as a result, the due dates can fall early in the semester. The head officer should read carefully Chapter III of the Faculty Code. Of particular importance are Sections 3, 4 and 5, and interpretations regarding “working days” and regarding Chapters III and IV of the Code contained in the appendix to the Code. The head officer should also be aware of any special provisions for the evaluation process that were specified in the candidate’s appointment letter. Original appointment letters can be obtained from the Provost’s office.

Evaluation of a head officer. When the head officer is the subject of the evaluation, the other tenure-line faculty of that unit will select some person to perform the functions that the head officer performs (Chapter III, Section 4a(3)(b) of the Faculty Code). Such a person may be a member of that unit or may, in the case of a small department, be a faculty member of a related department.

Evaluation of a joint appointment or interdisciplinary appointment. When a faculty member being evaluated is jointly appointed in more than one department, or has significant teaching responsibility in an interdisciplinary program, there may be more than one evaluation committee (Chapter III, Section 4a(3)(c) of the Faculty Code).

When a faculty member is appointed fully in an interdisciplinary position, composition of an evaluation committee and selection of the person who will function as head officer will be determined by the Provost in consultation with the evaluee (Faculty Code, Chapter III, Section 4a(3)(d)).

Variations in evaluation procedures should follow those specified in the appointment letter. These could include the following:

(1) Specification of the Departmental Evaluation Guidelines to be followed (the “home” department), in addition to any addenda or extradepartmental guidelines, including a time frame for development of any addenda and submission to the PSC for approval. (2) Specific information about the evaluation committee, stating how many faculty from each program or department will be represented on each committee, as well as the time frame for designating specific faculty members to fill those committee slots for each evaluation. (3) The division of teaching responsibilities between the home department and any other programs and departments. (4) Any specific requirements for university and/or department and/or program service.

Other variations in procedures. Under the Faculty Code, questions that may arise about procedure may be addressed through mutual agreement: “Other variations in procedure are permitted provided they are mutually agreed to by the evaluee, head officer, the dean, and the Advancement Committee. At any time during the evaluation, these same parties may resolve questions about the departmental review process by mutual agreement in writing” (Chapter III, Section 4a(3)(e)). Faculty participating in the evaluation of departmental colleagues should discuss with the head officer the specific procedures to be followed in such cases.

Fairness and adequate consideration. As indicated in the Faculty Code, Chapter III, Section 4, “The evaluation process is designed to provide a substantial body of credible evidence in writing as the basis for a fair and impartial review.” Moreover, "the evaluation process should be fair and ensure that adequate consideration is given the faculty member involved. Fairness and adequate consideration shall be achieved consistent with the criteria and procedures outlined in Chapter III, Sections 2-4."

Assessing the evaluee’s contribution to the department and the university. The department should not assume the uncritical role of advocate for its members, but should assess impartially the individual's performance, capabilities, and potential, with a serious concern for the strength of the department and university. It should respond to the question of whether or not this person will contribute in a significant way to the growth of the department in future years, so that it becomes, or remains, an outstanding part of a university offering the best instruction and finest student/faculty relations.

Informing letter-writers about open and closed files. As explained in Chapter III, Section 4a(1)D of the Faculty Code, all faculty members have the option of an open or closed evaluation file, including candidates for tenure. In an “open” file, the evaluee has the opportunity to read individual colleague letters after the file has been forwarded from the department to the Faculty Advancement Committee.  Every person writing an evaluation letter has a right to know whether a file is open or closed. The Provost, the department chair, school or program director, or the candidate should be the only persons to inform others of the file status, and that information should be released only when needed for the specific purpose of writing an evaluation letter. Thus, head officers should inform those department, school, or program colleagues who are writing evaluation letters about the status of the file for each faculty member being evaluated; the head officer should also inform letter writers outside the university of the file’s open or closed status at the point of solicitation of any outside evaluation letters. It is up to each individual faculty member whether they choose to share their letter with an evaluee in an open or a closed file. Note that, as letters sent directly to the Provost’s Office are summarized by the Faculty Advancement Committee and contributors named, if only one such letter is sent then the writer’s comments might not be effectively confidential.

Evidence used by departmental colleagues. The Faculty Code indicates in Chapter III, Section 4a

• (1) (b) that colleagues should be familiar with:

  (1) the evaluee’s professional objectives and philosophy, both as outlined in the evaluee’s statement and as demonstrated in practice; (2) the evaluee’s teaching performance/effectiveness, including, in order of importance: the exhibition of pedagogical skill, as assessed through examination of course materials and the organization and construction of courses; an ongoing process of class visitation; and the thoughtful review of all student feedback materials provided in the evaluee’s file; (3) the evaluee’s record of professional growth, as assessed through examination of evidence in the evaluation file and ongoing attendance to the evaluee’s scholarly and creative activity; (4) the evaluee’s contributions through university service, as documented in the evaluee’s file; (5) the evaluee’s service as an advisor; and (6) the evaluee’s involvement in community service related to professional interests and expertise.

In 2017-18, the PSC performed a review of recent scholarship on the problem of racial and gender bias in forms used for student feedback on teaching. On April 25, 2018, the Faculty approved a PSC motion: “that the Faculty Senate create an ad committee for the purposes of 1) mitigating the problem of bias in student evaluations, and 2) recommending a long-term solution or change to our current system.” Because of concern supported by national research studies, that student feedback forms invite bias and because student feedback forms by themselves may not accurately measure effective teaching, head officers of faculty reviews, department colleagues, and the Faculty Advancement Committee should use them with awareness of potential limitations and in the context of multiple forms of evidence of teaching effectiveness.

The Faculty Code requires that department colleagues engage in a “thoughtful review of all student feedback materials" (Chapter III, Section 4a.1.b). Given the aforementioned national research regarding bias in evaluation forms, the PSC recommends (a) that such "thoughtful review of all student feedback material” should take into account their unreliability as an indicator of teaching effectiveness and their potential for bias and (b) that student feedback materials should be assessed in close relationship to the faculty member's interpretation of student feedback in their statement as well as departmental colleagues’ interpretations of student feedback contained in their individual and departmental recommendations.

Departmental deliberative process. The deliberative process called for in the Faculty Code Chapter III, Section 4a(2) can take a number of different forms. The record of departmental deliberation forwarded to the Faculty Advancement Committee must demonstrate that a clear evaluation, based upon and governed by the department, school, or program's stated criteria, has been conducted. There is no reference in the Faculty Code to deliberations being confidential but individual departments may, by way of departmental evaluation guidelines, declare the deliberative process confidential.

Departmental recommendation. Please forward to the Provost's Office a department, school, or program recommendation for each member of your faculty under consideration. A recommendation for each faculty member should be clear and unambiguous. It should be specific and should discuss, in the context of the standards, goals, and future needs of the department or school and the university, the strengths and weaknesses of each individual evaluee in relation to university and departmental evaluation criteria. Please see the criteria spelled out in the Faculty Code, Chapter III, Section 3.

Materials to be prepared by the department include:

1. accurately dated and signed colleague letters addressing such items as:
   • evaluee's file and supporting evidence
   • classroom observations over a period of time

2. written statement of criteria, standards, and needs used in the departmental evaluation process as called for in Chapter III, Section 3b of the Code;

3. summary of the departmental deliberative process and a list of those participating in the process.

4. department recommendation based on developed criteria and department and university needs and standards, and a list of those individuals whose recommendations served as bases for the departmental recommendation;

5. minority recommendation by the head officer if he or she voted in the minority when the department, school, or program reached its recommendation;

6. summary of the substance of the letters (including any outside letters), if the file is a closed file.

Access to the evaluation file. All materials in the evaluee's file shall be open to the Faculty Advancement Committee, the Provost, the President, and the Board of Trustees. This access is governed by stipulations in the Faculty Code Chapter III, Section 8. In addition, as explained in Chapter III, Section 4a(1)D of the Faculty Code, all faculty members have the option of an open or closed evaluation file, including candidates for tenure. In an “open” file, the evaluee has the opportunity to read individual colleague letters after the file has been forwarded from the department to the Faculty Advancement Committee.

INFORMATION FOR FACULTY WHO ARE BEING EVALUATED

This section provides information for those who are scheduled for tenure, promotion, and/or non-streamlined 3-year or 5-year evaluations. (The special provisions for first- and second-year evaluations, instructors’ evaluations, and alternative “streamlined” evaluations for third-year associate and full professors are described elsewhere in this document.)

I. PREPARATION OF YOUR EVALUATION FILE

Begin by reading the documents that govern evaluations. Start with Chapter III of the Faculty Code, which describes the evaluation process and relevant interpretations in the Code appendix. If you are up for tenure and/or promotion, also read Chapter IV. Next, read the statement of “University Evaluation Standards.” Finally, read your departmental evaluation standards. Effective 2017-18, with implementation of a regular review cycle for departmental evaluation statements, faculty members undergoing evaluation may choose to use either the newly approved departmental evaluation standards or the most recent prior version of their department’s evaluation standards, so long as the most recent prior version was in effect on the date that the faculty member’s tenure-line or ongoing clinical-line appointment began. If you have any questions regarding the evaluation process, please consult with the head officer of your department, school or program, the Professional Standards Committee, the Faculty Advancement Committee, or the Provost.

Chapter III, Section 3d of the Faculty Code places responsibility for building a file and documenting a case for tenure or promotion upon the individual being evaluated.

If it is early in your career at the University of Puget Sound, bear in mind the advice given in the following excerpt from the Code interpretation of Chapter III, Sections 2-4: “The first annual evaluations and the first three year evaluation are important events. These evaluations constitute the only official feedback from the department, school or program and from the university that the evaluee will get prior to being considered for tenure. For the three year evaluation, great care should be taken on the part of the evaluee in preparing the documents for submission to the department, school, or program and it is incumbent upon the evaluee to initiate a dialogue with the head officer and/or colleagues upon receipt of the Faculty Advancement Committee's letter in order to maximize the constructiveness of the evaluation process.”

As your part of the evaluation process, you must submit your file to your head officer (department chair, program director, or school director or provost) by the file’s due date.

For digital evaluation files, the currently approved departmental guidelines will be loaded for evaluees when your Google evaluation sites are created. If you wish to use the most recent prior set of guidelines instead, please consult with your head officer and notify the Provost’s office. This option is available only if the most recent prior version was in effect on the date that your tenure-line or ongoing clinical-line appointment began.

Your file should include the following items:

1. statement of your professional objectives, both short-term and long-term, including a self-analysis of your teaching, scholarship, and service;

   To minimize the burden on the evaluee and others involved in the review process, the PSC recommends for all reviews except tenure that a statement not exceed 15 single-spaced pages. The PSC affirms that the length of a statement written for a tenure review ought to be left to the judgment of the evaluee.

2. your curriculum vitae (candidates for full professor should include in the curriculum vita a complete summary of career service at Puget Sound);

3. Substantial examples of teaching materials, including course syllabi, assignments, and other pertinent material on all courses evaluated by students, such as anonymized graded essays, class activities, examinations, prompts for group work, and lecture slides.

4. information about professional growth, including copies of relevant prepared materials (note that “in progress” work that is not included in the file, or not evaluated by colleagues, may signal promise but is challenging for the FAC to evaluate as demonstrable evidence of professional growth);

5. information concerning successful advising;

6. information concerning university service;

7. information concerning community service;

8. other material you believe to be useful (for example, outside letters from individuals who are not faculty members at the University of Puget Sound); and

9. student feedback surveys for all courses taught during the most recent two semesters of teaching in promotion, 3-year, or 5-year evaluation cases, and during the most recent four semesters of teaching in tenure cases (Faculty Code Chapter III, Section 4, 1.a). Student Feedback Surveys should normally be completed no earlier than the tenth week of class.

• The PSC wants to remind colleagues that third-year student feedback surveys satisfy the “most recent four semesters” requirement in cases where a colleague did not obtain student feedback surveys during years 4 and 5 because of a junior sabbatical (or because of medical leave or other leaves)

• The PSC wants to remind department chairs and junior colleagues that collecting at least one semester of student feedback surveys during year three is advisable.

• Student feedback surveys collected during a junior colleague’s second year will not normally satisfy the “most recent four semesters” requirement for tenure files.

Faculty teaching team-taught courses (at either the undergraduate or graduate levels) may use any one of the options below for student evaluations:

• the current, standard Student Feedback Survey;

• the current, standard Student Feedback Survey along with a one page addendum with additional questions regarding the team-taught aspects of the course;

• the addendum to the Student Feedback Survey, the "Evaluation Addendum for Team-taught Courses,” based on the standard evaluation form, which focuses on the team-taught nature of the course rather than evaluation of an individual faculty member.

Graduate faculty should check with their program chairs to determine which option and form to use.

Regardless of the form used, the time allowed for student evaluations is the standard evaluation time (20 minutes). Instructors who teach short segments of a team-teaching course (e.g., a two-week block) rather than being part of a course for the entire term are encouraged to use options A or B above. In a team-taught course in which a faculty member only teaches a small segment of the course, evaluation forms can be administered at the conclusion of the faculty member’s participation in the course.

Any of the team-teaching evaluation options above can be used during a faculty member’s formal evaluation.

Faculty readers of the addendum to the Student Feedback Survey, the "Evaluation Addendum for Team-taught Courses,” should bear in mind that this form seeks to elicit student feedback on collaborative pedagogy that is distinct from a course designed and taught by one individual instructor.

Faculty Google Drive Evaluation Site FAQ

1. While I’m preparing my file, can I view the site as an EVALUATOR would see it?

   The view you see of your files and folders will be the same view an evaluator sees. All files and folders put into your Google Drive Faculty Evaluation folder will be visible to evaluators.

2. How do I give access to my PAST/PRESENT Canvas courses to my evaluators?
   Evaluees are not expected to give full access to past courses in Canvas, but any materials you want to include from past courses can be uploaded and organized into folders.

3. Until what time do I have to submit my file on the date it’s due?
   You have until 11:55 PM (Pacific Time) on the day the file is due to submit content.

   IMPORTANT: Since you will lose access to your Google Drive Evaluation Site, you are responsible for retaining your own copies of the documents you place in the Evaluation Site for future reference.

4. Who do I contact with questions about my evaluation file?
   For questions related to using the technology (how to add/edit files in Google Drive): contact Educational Technology (edtech@pugetsound.edu) For questions related to the evaluation process and dates, please contact the Provost’s Office.

II. DEPARTMENT EVALUATION PROCESS

Your departmental colleagues will prepare their evaluation letters based on the material in your file and on other evidence such as class visitations. They will make a recommendation.

When the department, school, or program has completed its evaluation, your entire file will be sent to the Provost's Office for the Faculty Advancement Committee's consideration.

III. REVIEWING AND CHALLENGING THE DEPARTMENTAL EVALUATION

Reviewing your file. After your file has been forwarded to the Provost's Office by your head officer and the Provost’s Office has notified you that the file is complete and ready for review, you have five working days to inventory the contents of the file and to review the non-confidential materials in it (Faculty Code, Chapter III, Section 4b.).

Challenging the departmental evaluation: If after reviewing your file in the Provost’s Office, you believe that you have been inadequately or unfairly evaluated by your department, school, or program, you have the right to challenge the evaluation informally and/or formally. An informal challenge must be initiated within five working days of your reviewing the file.

A formal challenge, which involves an appeal to a hearing board, must be initiated within ten working days of your reviewing the file. Formal appeals must allege that the Faculty Code has been violated, while informal appeals need not do so. For more information about informal and formal challenges, consult Chapter III, Section 4b of the Faculty Code.

FAC’s evaluation schedule: The Faculty Advancement Committee will attempt to complete its evaluations of tenure candidates in time for the President to take his tenure recommendations to the Board of Trustees at their annual February meeting. Promotion recommendations have, in recent years, been considered at the Board’s May meeting. The FAC’s general practice is to send evaluation letters by group (e.g., all third-year assistant professor letters typically are sent out when all of those evaluations are completed).

Formal appeals: If a formal hearing board finds no violation of the Faculty Code, the evaluation file moves to the next stage, and the evaluee may appeal if the next stage is the Faculty Advancement Committee but not if the next stage is review by the President; however, if a formal hearing board finds a violation and recommends that the file be sent back whence it came, then the evaluee, the evaluators, and the process of evaluation must follow the Code, which entails that the evaluee may informally or formally challenge as the evaluation proceeds anew according to the Code (Faculty Code, Chapter III, Section 6).

Further review of the file: Once the period of informal or formal challenge to a departmental decision has passed, an evaluee can request access to the file. The file is also available for review after the FAC has completed its work. (Faculty Code, Chapter III, Section 8.)

CHECKLIST FOR HEAD OFFICERS

The Faculty Advancement Committee suggests that steps listed below are particularly important for head officers in promoting conformity with Faculty Code provisions governing the evaluation process. This list is selective and is not a substitute for or a summary of the Code.

EVALUATIONS IN THE FIRST AND SECOND YEARS

First- and second-year faculty members will be evaluated only within the department by means of a written progress report by the head officer that should be forwarded to the individual, the Faculty Advancement Committee and the Provost by June 30 of that year. If the review due date falls on a Saturday or Sunday, the review is due by the Monday immediately following the due date.

The following passages are excerpted from the interpretation of the Faculty Code, Chapter III, Sections 2-4, which is published in the appendix to the Code.

“Each Department, School, or Program should have on file with the Provost a written statement of the criteria, standards, and needs of the Department which are used in the deliberation. This statement includes criteria for faculty teaching, professional growth, and service. This document is written with respect to the university's standards and needs. Evaluees are encouraged to obtain this document early in their first year from their Department, School, or Program and to discuss its meaning with the head officer.”

“The annual evaluations during the first two years of a non-tenured appointment are made by the head officer of the Department, School, or Program. A copy of the report will be sent to the individual evaluated, the Provost, and the Faculty Advancement Committee. This document is for informational purposes and no further action is required; however, the Professional Standards Committee urges evaluees to initiate interaction with the head officer and/or colleagues for constructive utilization of this evaluation process.”

“The first annual evaluations and the first three-year evaluation are important events. These evaluations constitute the only official feedback from the Department, School or Program and from the university that the evaluee will get prior to being considered for tenure.”

EVALUATION OF THREE-YEAR VISITING FACULTY

For those visiting faculty members whose appointments are renewable and continue beyond the second year, evaluations normally occur at the end of the first and second year and are performed by the head officer of the department, school, or program. In each year, a copy of the report is sent to the individual evaluated and to the Provost. At the end of the first year, this document is for informational purposes and no further action is required; however, the Professional Standards Committee urges evaluees to initiate interaction with the head officer and/or colleagues for constructive utilization of this evaluation process. At the end of the second year, this evaluation may serve as a basis for renewal of contract, when applicable.

Approved by the PSC, October 22, 2018: If the appointment is renewed beyond the second year, an evaluation will be conducted by the head officer at the end of year 3 and every three years thereafter, with a copy of the report sent to the individual and to the Provost. Pending recommendations from the Faculty Senate Committee on Contingent Faculty, this provision for persons who will have served six years or more will take effect in 2020-21. At the time of the sixth-year review, a full departmental review will be completed. Instructor and Course evaluation forms from the two semesters preceding the review years will be included in the evaluation file.

In all reviews of visiting faculty members, the evaluation criteria and procedures of the department or program will serve as the basis for review.

The Faculty Code Chapter II, Section 5 authorizes the university to determine not to reappoint faculty without tenure for any reason not forbidden by the Code.

EVALUATIONS OF ONGOING INSTRUCTORS

Interpretation of Faculty Code Chapter III, Section 3 and 4 and Chapter I, Part B, Section 2a. Evaluation of Instructors (Report to Faculty Senate 5 May 1986):

The evaluation procedure to be followed (for Instructors) is roughly the procedure outlined in the Faculty Code, Chapter III. An informal evaluation is to be done within the department in each of the first two years, with a summary report sent to the Provost for information. In the third year, and every third year thereafter, a formal evaluation, as outlined in the Code, will be held. The evaluation of Instructors will be based upon the quality of their performance in the following areas, listed in order of importance:

1. Teaching

2. Professional Development: Instructors are expected to remain current in the relevant parts of the discipline and to keep abreast of those developments in the discipline which bear upon their teaching duties. They are not required to engage in scholarly research and writing; however, the department may encourage them to do those things which will add to their repertoire of professional awareness and abilities.

3. Advising Students

4. Participation in Departmental Service

Finally, the standards to be employed in assessing professional performance will be those used for all other evaluations in the department, except as they pertain to scholarly work and university service.

Note: In 2001-2002, the faculty implemented a revised salary scale for Instructors that replaced the existing merit pay system and allows Instructors who are performing well to advance in salary over their careers. For advancement to pay levels 13 and beyond, Instructors must maintain satisfactory performance as recommended to the Provost by their department and the Faculty Advancement Committee through the normal three-year evaluation process.

ALTERNATIVE “STREAMLINED” EVALUATIONS

As outlined in the Faculty Code Chapter III, Section 5, professors at any year of service in that rank and three-year associate professors may elect, with the concurrence of their head officer and the Provost, to have their review conducted using this alternative “streamlined” procedure. “Streamlined” evaluations are conducted by the head officer and a member of the Faculty Advancement Committee, rather than by the entire department. Instructors who have served 17 years or more in that rank may establish an alternating schedule of full and alternative “streamlined” reviews in consultation with the head officer and the Provost under the procedures described in this section. Please consult the Faculty Code for detailed procedures in this case.

The alternative “streamlined” review process is intended to lessen the impact of the review on departmental colleagues while preserving many of the review safeguards currently in place. Thus, the evaluee’s file is made available for colleagues and they “have the option of” reading it, but colleagues are not required or even expected to do so (Faculty Code, Chapter III, Section 5c). External letters, colleague letters from inside or outside the department, and class visits are optional. Evaluees should submit a file that is representative of their work during the period under review and is in keeping with the spirit of the Code.

Eligibility for Distinguished Professorship. Both those who elect the alternative “streamlined” evaluation process and those who are evaluated through the full evaluation process will be eligible for consideration for recognition as Distinguished Professors.