Update on the Review of the Faculty Annual Evaluation System Pay for Performance - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 20
About This Presentation
Title:

Update on the Review of the Faculty Annual Evaluation System Pay for Performance

Description:

Institute a standing peer review process to address evaluations deemed above 'Standard' ... Regularly review the use of College and departmental Strategic ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:35
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 21
Provided by: tatsa
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Update on the Review of the Faculty Annual Evaluation System Pay for Performance


1
Update on the Review of the Faculty Annual
Evaluation System(Pay for Performance)
  • A Presentation produced jointly by the
  • Working Committee and Steering Committee
  • of the Merit Evaluation Review Project,
  • in consultation with UM Global HR
  • Tat Sang So, Ph.D.
  • Assistant Professor of English

2
Contents
  • Brief history of the Merit Evaluation review
    project
  • Where we are right now
  • Root problems with the current evaluation system,
    and possible solutions
  • A 3-year implementation blueprint

3
Brief History
  • December 2006 UM Global HR holds town hall
    meetings for faculty.
  • January 2007 President Jordan forms and charges
    the Working Committee, Steering Committee, and
    Advisory Committee.
  • Jan 2007 to present The Working Committee with
    UM Global HR meet approximately once every 2
    weeks.
  • Jan 2007 to present The Steering Committee with
    UM Global HR meet approximately once every 4
    weeks.
  • May 2007 The Working Committee submits a
    Handbook change request to the Handbook
    Committee, targeting action in Fall 2007.

4
Where we are right now
  • Proposals with wide acceptance by the Working and
    Steering Committees
  • Ideas still under discussion
  • Emerging ideas

WIDE ACCEPTANCE
UNDERDISCUSSION
EMERGINGIDEAS
5
Proposals with wide acceptance by the Working and
Steering Committees
WIDE ACCEPTANCE
  • Implement two forms of pay increases
    base-building increases plus non-base-building
    increases.
  • Find ways to make the non-base-building pool a
    protected line of the budget (ie. Create a
    provision in the Exigency Plan).
  • Practice ongoing Equity / Parity analysis through
    a standing committee advising the administration.
  • Replace the system of letters and numbers with a
    system of categories that do not result in an
    averaged score.
  • Pay dollar amount increases for each performance
    area, rather than for a cumulative score.
  • Encourage the elimination of documentation for
    expected activity, and show trust that expected
    activity is actually performed.
  • Institute a standing peer review process to
    address evaluations deemed above Standard.

6
Ideas still under discussion
UNDERDISCUSSION
  • Expanding the Pay for Performance project to
    encompass comprehensive reform of the faculty
    annual evaluation process.
  • Common guidelines replacing departmental
    guidelines for the purpose of annual evaluation.
  • If common guidelines are used, the extent of room
    for differences between disciplines.
  • Across-the-board base-building increases for all
    qualifying faculty.
  • Possible revisions to RTP (Retention, Tenure, and
    Promotion) and PTR (Post-Tenure Review).
  • Using the Student Course Evaluation system for
    quantitative data on teaching performance.

7
Emerging ideas
EMERGINGIDEAS
  • Linking to the Center for Faculty Development.
  • Employing PeopleAdmin to automate the evaluation
    system.
  • Using Strategic Planning in common guidelines.
  • Changing aspects of the position of Department
    Chair.
  • Developing the evaluation peer review process.

8
Root Problems with the Current System
  • Equity / Parity
  • Confused Purposes with Merit Pay
  • Number and Letter Grading
  • Low Stakes Evaluation
  • Chairs without Institutional Support
  • Inter-Departmental Inequities
  • Lack of Faculty Development
  • Over-documentation
  • Communication Issues
  • Financial Education

9
Equity / ParityProblem Metro States perceived
history of low salaries results in a legacy
practice of giving high evaluations as an
informal equity/parity adjustment.
  • Possible Solutions
  • Practice ongoing equity/parity analysis and
    adjustment through a standing advisory committee.
  • Continue base-building pay increases that keep up
    with the real cost of living in the metro Denver
    area.

WIDE ACCEPTANCE
WIDE ACCEPTANCE
10
Confused Purposes with Merit PayProblem The
term, Merit Pay, has historically been used
both for cost of living increases, and for
rewarding performance, causing confusion with
regard to the purposes of evaluation.
  • Possible Solutions
  • Formally separate Merit Pay into two components
    base-building increases approximating cost of
    living inflation, awarded to faculty with
    qualifying evaluation results, and additional
    non-base-building increases awarded for high
    performance.

WIDE ACCEPTANCE
11
Number and Letter GradingProblem The system of
number and letter grading is open to misuse by
every party in the evaluation process.
  • Possible Solutions
  • Replace the system of numbers and letters with a
    system of categories for each evaluation area.
  • Eliminate the practice of arriving at an averaged
    score for each faculty member. This should
    encourage qualitative assessment.
  • Revise the RTP (Retention, Tenure and Promotion)
    and PTR (Post-Tenure Review) processes to reflect
    the elimination of summative grades.

WIDE ACCEPTANCE
WIDE ACCEPTANCE
UNDERDISCUSSION
12
Low Stakes EvaluationProblem The relatively
small sums available for merit pay increases
create little urgency for evaluation that
accurately reflects performance.
  • Possible Solutions
  • Establish and support a fund in the budget for
    substantial non-base-building pay increases that
    reward high performance.
  • In consultation with faculty, establish levels of
    high performance, routinely reachable by faculty,
    to be rewarded by non-base-building pay increases
    above base-building.
  • In consultation with faculty, establish levels of
    extremely high performance, not routinely
    reachable, to be rewarded with high and rare
    non-base-building pay increases.

WIDE ACCEPTANCE
UNDERDISCUSSION
UNDERDISCUSSION
13
Chairs without Institutional SupportProblem
Department Chairs tend to view themselves as
faculty colleagues within isolated departments,
rather than as administrative supervisors with
institutional support. As a result, they are
unlikely to give low evaluations to colleagues in
their departments.
  • Possible Solutions
  • Institute reform of the position of Department
    Chair.
  • Raise Chair stipends to encourage closer
    alignment with the goals of the institution.
  • Provide training and support for Department
    Chairs.

EMERGINGIDEAS
EMERGINGIDEAS
WIDE ACCEPTANCE
14
Inter-Departmental InequitiesProblem
Inequities between departments and schools make
any one department reluctant to evaluate their
faculty members rigorously, lest they place their
faculty at an unfair disadvantage.
  • Possible Solutions
  • Implement a set of common guidelines which allows
    for limited differences between disciplines and
    departments.
  • Institute a College-wide peer review process
    charged with evaluating accomplishments beyond
    Standard.
  • Reform the Student Course Evaluation process to
    ensure the data is useful as a common measure of
    teaching effectiveness.

UNDERDISCUSSION
UNDERDISCUSSION
UNDERDISCUSSION
15
Lack of Faculty DevelopmentProblem Annual
evaluations have never been linked to a formal
system of faculty development low evaluations
are perceived as being solely punitive with no
developmental or formative purpose.
  • Possible Solutions
  • Institute a formal linkage between faculty annual
    evaluations and the Center for Faculty
    Development (CFD).
  • Provide for separate formative and summative
    information tracks within the evaluation system
    the formative track should be kept confidential
    between the faculty member and the CFD to
    encourage candor in the faculty members
    developmental program.
  • Charge Department Chairs with primary
    responsibility for either the formative or
    summative role, but not for both (the specific
    role best suited for Department Chairs is not yet
    determined).

EMERGINGIDEAS
EMERGINGIDEAS
EMERGINGIDEAS
16
Over-documentationProblem A perceived
punitive intent in the evaluation process
encourages faculty members to over-document their
annual self-evaluation, creating the perception
of a burdensome system, diluting the value of the
documentation.
  • Possible Solutions
  • Encourage the elimination of documentation for
    activity that is expected of all faculty,
    reserving space only for activity beyond what is
    expected.
  • Demonstrate trust that the faculty member has
    performed expected activity.
  • Use the PeopleAdmin module automating performance
    evaluation to enforce a word limit on
    documentation, encouraging self-evaluations to
    reflect only the most important material.

WIDE ACCEPTANCE
WIDE ACCEPTANCE
EMERGINGIDEAS
17
Communication IssuesProblem Poor communication
between faculty and administration results in
poor coordination between individual goals and
institutional priorities.
  • Possible Solutions
  • Gradually phase in the use of the College
    Strategic Plan as one basis for common
    guidelines, and departmental Strategic Plans as
    basis for departmental variations within the
    common guidelines.
  • Regularly review the use of College and
    departmental Strategic Plans in faculty annual
    evaluations as part of the continuous Strategic
    Planning review process.
  • Amend the Handbook to provide basic common
    guidelines that will not be covered by the
    Strategic Plans.

EMERGINGIDEAS
EMERGINGIDEAS
UNDERDISCUSSION
18
Financial EducationProblem There is a lack of
clear information among the faculty regarding
market-based compensation and institutional
budgeting, resulting in an us vs. them mindset
that undermines collective responsibility for
accurate evaluation.
  • Possible Solutions
  • Provide for common communication and training in
    institutional leadership, finance, and planning.
  • Create a transparent process by which current
    market conditions are communicated.

EMERGINGIDEAS
EMERGINGIDEAS
19
3-Year Implementation Blueprint
  • Year 0 (2007) Development, Consultation,
    Approval, Training.
  • Provided that Year 0 goals are completed
  • Year 1 (2008) Implement the straightforward
    proposals Continue developing the complex
    proposals Begin the first annual evaluation
    period.
  • Provided that Year 1 goals are completed
  • Year 2 (2009) Conduct evaluations on the 2008
    period Implement all remaining proposals
    Pay out merit pay from 2008 evaluation
    results Begin the second annual evaluation
    period.
  • Year 3 (2010) Review the changes Design,
    implement, train on adjustments Implement a
    process of regular periodic review.

20
Year 0 (2007)
  • Development Develop goals within the Working,
    Steering, and Advisory Committee structure.
  • Consultation Communicate and consult with
    faculty, administration, and Board of Trustees.
  • Approval Implement necessary changes to the
    Handbook through the Handbook Revision Process
  • Faculty Senate
  • Handbook Committee
  • Presidents Cabinet
  • Board of Trustees
  • Training Provide training on the new process.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com