The intent of the Faculty Appraisal and Planning procedures is to:
In addition to the above, these Appraisals form the basis for merit pay increases and they may be used at the dean and Provost level to supplement the materials presented to support promotion and tenure recommendations. These Appraisals are not intended to take the place of either departmental or committee evaluations for promotion or tenure or of the periodic "Evaluation of Faculty Activities."
The following procedure is suggested: Prior to their meeting, both the chairperson and the faculty member should complete a draft of Part I: APPRAISAL, and the faculty member should complete at least Part II: PLANNING. During the discussion of the APPRAISAL, each faculty member should be shown a copy of the mid-ratings (see below) for the entire department. It is anticipated that in some cases a rating of an individual faculty member will be changed as a result of this discussion. (After all the faculty have met with the chairperson, final mid-ratings for the entire department should be calculated and recorded on each faculty member's form.) If the faculty member takes exception to any of the chairperson's ratings, the faculty member's rating for that item should also be recorded on the form. After the interview has been completed, the chairperson and the faculty member must sign the final copy. The faculty member's signature does not indicate agreement or disagreement with the appraisal, but simply that it was discussed in detail with the chairperson.
The "mid-rating" is merely a simplified median, the rating of the hypothetical middle member of that department when all the faculty are rank-ordered on that particular item. These mid-ratings will have to be calculated before holding any interviews each year, and they must be based on the preliminary ratings giving by the chairperson that year. They will have to be recalculated after all the interviews have been held if any of the ratings are changed. They will be "simplified" in that decimals should be omitted, rounding the mid-rating toward the middle rating of "5." The Associate Provost for Instruction will assist anyone requesting help.
The data required at the top of the form are generally self-explanatory. Years at the University of Delaware should be the number of years at the University, including the current year. Full-time should be checked if the person is full-time with the University and if all their University responsibilities are being evaluated in the appraisal and planning form (even though they may not be 100 percent funded by the department). Part-time personnel, or personnel whose appraisal and planning form covers only part of their University responsibilities, should be designated by indicating the proportion that is devoted to the department and is being appraised. For example, a half time instructor would be listed as 50 percent. For faculty with joint appointments, it is recommended that their appraisal and plans be combined on one form, if this is feasible, after the evaluating chairperson has consulted with the second chairperson. Otherwise, two separate forms, based on separate evaluations and requiring separate interviews must be prepared.
For each of the three areas, teaching, research/creative/professional activity, and service, the percent of the faculty member's effort assigned to that area should be indicated. The manner in which these "assignments" are determined will vary considerably. In some units it will be a matter of contract, in some it will be by formal or informal agreement between the faculty member and the chairperson, and in some it will simply be departmental practice applied to all members of the unit. These percentages are very important because readers, in interpreting these appraisals, should weigh each area according to the percent of effort assigned to that area for the individual faculty member.
For each area or item, the chairperson should write a narrative appraisal of the faculty member's relevant activities and then rate the person's performance on that activity. The criteria to be used as the bases for these judgments should generally be the criteria for performance of faculty members at each rank (as codified under the promotion criteria accepted by the department, college, and University promotions and tenure committees, and by the Provost's Office), and should take into account the individual faculty member's particular responsibilities.
Each chairperson has the option of using a 3-point or 9-point scale for the ratings. If the 3-point scale is used, only "2," "5," and "8" ratings should be marked. The 9-point scale permits finer discriminations for those chairpersons who wish to use it.
The rating "At Criteria" indicates that, in the judgment of the rater, the faculty member is performing his or her assignment(s) in the area being appraised in a satisfactory manner. For the majority of the faculty, if all their ratings continued to be "At Criteria," they could expect a recommendation from their chairperson when they came up for promotion. Faculty who are rated "Above Criteria" would be performing in an outstanding manner on the item(s) being rated. To the extent that such ratings were characteristic of their performance over a period of years, these faculty members could expect strong support from their chairpersons for their promotion. Ratings "Below Criteria," on the other hand, indicate that the individuals, in the judgment of the rater, would not be performing satisfactorily And would not be making normal progress toward promotion. If such ratings were characteristic of the faculty member and were not improved over time, such faculty members could expect that the chairperson would recommend against their being promoted or retained.
The meaning of ratings may vary. For example, the criterial research activities of a full professor that would warrant a "5" rating most probably would be different from those of an associate professor with a "5." The teaching activities of a part-time instructor would differ from those of a full-time instructor. If part-time instructors are doing satisfactorily what is assigned to them, however, they would be rated "5" (in this example) even though they are doing much less than a full-time instructor also rated "5."
The N/A (Not Applicable) ratings should only be used in those cases where there is no requirement for that individual to engage in that particular activity; the person has no responsibilities in that area, and would be promotable without engaging in such activities. For example, a faculty member would not be rated for teaching graduate students in a unit that had no graduate courses.
In other cases, the N/R (Not Rated) rating should be used. For example, a new Ph.D. might be given an N/R rating in research/creative/professional activity because his or her development program is too new to be meaningfully evaluated, but not an N/A rating because assistant professors, even new ones, are expected to engage in research/creative/professional activity.
It is recognized that no chairperson or any single individual can duplicate the judgment of several committees, nor can performance during a single year determine one's promotion, nor can these procedures match the extensive and intensive evaluation that takes place when a person comes up for promotion. But it is thought that the Faculty Appraisal & Planning procedures will provide an opportunity: 1) for faculty members to inform their chairpersons more completely and accurately about their activities; and 2) for the chairpersons to give the faculty their best judgments on how well the faculty are fulfilling their responsibilities, and what progress they are making toward promotion and professional growth.
Part II: Planning provides an opportunity for the faculty member and chairperson to discuss the faculty member's plans for the coming year. The intent is to determine mutually acceptable goals that develop the faculty member's strength or correct any weaknesses. Plans discussed one year should serve as the basis, at least in part, for appraisals the following year. Of course, even the best laid plans may be changed or fail for legitimate reasons. But it must also be recognized that advanced planning is becoming increasingly necessary to implement any kind of activity in higher education. It is hoped that, as a result of these planning sessions, faculty members will be better able both to fulfill their responsibilities to the students and the University, and to develop themselves professionally.
The Personnel Information Supplement form (PIN-S) is to be completed at the same time as the Appraisal and Planning Form and attached to it by each faculty member. Faculty are free to add other materials to support their ratings on their activities, especially where they believe that a different appraisal should have been given. Chairpersons also may add materials they consider appropriate. Copies of all additional materials should be included in each of the four sets.
