Date: January 25, 2002

To: Dr. W. Sanborn Pfeiffer

Vice President for Academic Affairs

From: President Lisa A. Rossbacher

Re: Faculty personnel packages

I am very pleased to note that the faculty personnel files that you forwarded to me for review this year are overall strong. I want to express my appreciation to you, the deans, and the faculty for your good work in making important improvements in the content and quality of these packages. I know that you will be providing feedback about the process to the deans and the peer committees, and I wanted to provide you with my perspective, as well.

Letters from external evaluators

Letters from many of the outside evaluators were valuable in putting the activities and achievements of SPSU faculty in the context of the profession -- and of higher education. Evaluators who could comment on the value of faculty contributions, their reputation within the field, and their contributions relative to faculty at other schools were particularly helpful.

These letters were also important in cases where they spoke to the value and use of web pages. We are all still learning about how to understand web pages as scholarly contributions, and perspective on this topic from outside evaluators was very helpful.

The content of the letters from outside evaluators suggests that they may have been responding to a variety of different questions that were posed to them. I don't know what these external evaluators were asked, but it might be useful to develop a standard letter for outside evaluators that identifies the questions we're most interested in having answered. From my perspective, reading the outside evaluator's assessment of a faculty member's professional contributions is considerably more helpful than knowing that the evaluator "recommends" someone for tenure or promotion at this campus.

Narratives

Particularly helpful narratives included information from the faculty member about how student and peer evaluations were used to improve teaching, including plans for future classes.

The most useful narratives clearly identified activities or accomplishments as falling in one of the four areas of evaluation and explained the rationale. Less helpful ones included the same activity in two or three categories, with no effort to explain why a particular activity should be considered (for example) as service and professional growth and academic achievement. In all but the most extraordinary cases, an activity or accomplishment should be counted in only one of the evaluation categories. The least helpful narratives didn't link activities with any specific category of accomplishment at all.

The best narratives did an excellent job of giving a real feel for the faculty member's style and enthusiasm for teaching. In reading these narratives, I felt like I understood how the faculty member interacted with students and motivated them to learn. I enjoyed reading these very much.

Use of student evaluations of teaching

The University criteria for tenure and promotion state that noteworthy teaching is a requirement. Student evaluations of teaching should be only one way in which meeting this criterion should be substantiated, but most of the packages provided no other form of support for teaching excellence. None of the narratives provided any data that compared student evaluations with other evaluations within the program, school, or university. Of this year's packages, more than half simply noted that SIRS II summaries were attached, with no analysis, and a third of the packages didn't even mention this information in the narrative. Of the 2 packages (of 11) that provided any analysis, both faculty members compared their scores with the "comparative mean for 4-year institutions," a number that is printed on the report forms but which is arguably not very relevant to this University.

Narratives in these personnel packages could be strengthened significantly if faculty had the necessary data to provide an analysis of their scores relative to program, school, and the University averages. This information, in the context of other sources of information about teaching, will be very useful in the review process.

Peer evaluation of teaching

The packages that included evidence of peer evaluation of teaching were very helpful, but only a few included this information. In several cases, letters of support mentioned peer evaluation, but no evidence was included in the package. In the variety of ways in which teaching is evaluated and strengthened, peer review is an important source of information, both for the individual faculty member and for the review process. I hope to see more information about this source of data in subsequent years.

Peer review committee letters

The most valuable peer review letters were the ones that provided an assessment of the faculty member's activities and accomplishments; the least useful letters were simply summaries of information that was included elsewhere in the package.

Grammar and spelling

Errors in spelling and grammar existed in letters from deans, peer committees, and the faculty packages themselves. If we ask our students to be responsible and accountable for the correct use of language in their written work, shouldn't we hold ourselves to the same standard?

Areas of noteworthy activity

Some of the packages were inconsistent in identifying and supporting areas for "noteworthy" performance. In one case, the three areas identified by the faculty member were different from the three identified by the peer committee…which were different from those identified by the dean…which were different from those listed by you. We should consistently rely on the faculty member's identification of the areas in which he or she is making the case for "noteworthy" performance.

A note about contracts and agreements

Based on some of the materials appended to personnel packages, I need to reiterate the Board of Regents' policy about signing contracts, agreements, licenses, etc. Only two people on campus are authorized to sign anything that commits the University: the President and the Vice President for Business and Finance. Only three people are authorized to accept gifts: the President and VP for Business and Finance (if the gift is to the University, including a school or program) and the Executive Director for Advancement (if the gift is to the SPSU Foundation). Period. No one else is authorized to sign on behalf of the University, and if someone else does so, the signature is not binding to the University, the signer may be personally liable, and any gift acceptance has its tax-deductable status jeopardized. Your help in ensuring that all faculty, staff, and administrators in Academic Affairs understand this will be greatly appreciated.

Overall, this year's packages -- and process -- are a significant improvement over those of previous years. Many thanks to you and your colleagues for making this happen.