|
CPR and Annual Performance Review Recommendations
UTIA Advisory Council
October 26, 2001
Recommendation 1:
The Institute of Agriculture has successfully used Annual Performance Reviews
(APR) to encourage and achieve scholarly achievement. Properly conducted APRs
are the foundation for excellence within the University. The Advisory Council
recommends continuation of relevant APRs as the process for rewarding higher-performing individuals with merit pay increases and for identifying individuals
performing unsatisfactorily.
Based on recommendation number 1, we encourage the Vice President for
Agriculture to further explore with the Board of Trustees the possibility of
implementing recommendation number 2 within the Institute of Agriculture.
Recommendation 2:
UTIA administrators should only conduct the Cumulative Performance Review
(CPR) process when a faculty member receives two consecutive unsatisfactory
annual performance evaluations. An initial APR rating of unsatisfactory should
immediately be followed with a remediation plan for the given faculty member.
This recommendation is consistent with CPR guidelines at several major
universities.
Recommendation 3:
The Advisory Council recommends that CPR be conducted using a peer-consensus
evaluation of scholarly achievement. The CPR panel should use sound logic and
judgment in evaluating performance. The evaluation criteria should not be based
on a numerical quota system nor a quantization of scholarly achievement by
categories. The Council thoroughly examined the faculty evaluation process and
determined numerical/quantitative evaluation can be counter-productive and is
not the best way to achieve scholarly work.
A Council-facilitiated department-by-department survey of major and peer
universities supports this recommendation (see attached survey results.) The
vast majority of departments and institutions across the United States use a
non-numerical approach to evaluate scholarly achievement. Most evaluation
guidelines were developed or revised within the past three to five years, and
indications are they will not change in the foreseeable future.
These three recommendations build upon each other. The recommendations should
be considered as a comprehensive package. However, if recommendation number 2 is
not allowed, the Council then recommends adoption of recommendations number 1
and 3.
Revised Summary
Department heads within the Institute of Agriculture were requested to survey
department heads at major and peer universities regarding the criteria for
post-tenure review at other universities.
Draft results are as follows:
- Seventy-one departments from 39 universities responded to the survey.
- Interest is strong in post-tenure review. Twenty-two of the 39
universities have post-tenure review. No university reported having
standardized quantitative criteria across departments.
- During the past two to four years, interest in post-tenure review has
accelerated. The majority of the guidelines have been recently created and
finalized by the universities.
- Post-tenure review criteria generally focus on excellence. In a number of
universities, CPR only deals with faculty who are not meeting expectations.
- Criteria for CPR generally stress quality of work. Only four departments
out of the 71 departments surveyed reported the use of quantitative
criteria.
As departments receive additional replies, the results will be added to
the report.
Table 1. Universities Reporting Standardized Quantitative
Post-Tenure Review Criteria Across Departmental Lines
2001.
|
Reporting
University
|
Ag. Econ |
Animal Science |
Engineering |
Entomology |
Food Science |
Forestry |
|
Arkansas 1 |
|
|
|
|
No |
|
|
Auburn |
|
|
|
|
|
No |
|
Clemson 1 |
|
|
No |
No |
|
No |
|
Colorado State1 |
No |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Connecticut |
|
No |
|
|
|
|
|
Cornell 1 |
|
|
No |
|
No |
|
|
Florida 1 |
No |
|
No |
No |
|
|
|
Georgia 1 |
No |
|
|
No |
|
No |
|
Idaho 1 |
No |
No |
|
|
|
|
|
Illinois 1 |
No |
No |
No |
|
No |
|
|
Iowa State 1 |
|
No |
|
|
No |
|
|
Kansas State 1 |
|
No |
|
|
|
|
|
Kentucky 1 |
|
No |
|
|
No |
|
|
LSU |
|
No |
No |
|
|
No |
|
Maryland 1 |
No |
|
|
|
No |
|
|
Massachusetts |
|
|
|
|
No |
|
|
Minnesota 1 |
|
|
|
|
No |
|
|
Mississippi State |
|
|
|
|
|
No |
|
Missouri 1 |
No |
No |
|
|
No |
|
|
Nebraska 1 |
|
No |
|
|
|
|
|
New Hampshire |
No |
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Mexico State |
No |
|
|
|
|
|
|
NC State 1 |
No |
No |
|
No |
No |
No |
|
North Dakota State |
No |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ohio State 1 |
No |
|
|
|
No |
|
|
Oklahoma State |
|
No |
No |
|
|
|
|
Oregon State |
No |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Penn State 1 |
No |
No |
|
|
|
|
|
Purdue |
No |
|
|
|
No |
|
|
Rutgers |
|
|
|
No |
|
No |
|
Santa Clara U |
No |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Texas A&M 1 |
|
No |
No |
|
|
No 2 |
|
Texas Tech |
No |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Utah State 1 |
No |
|
|
|
|
No |
|
Virginia Tech |
No |
|
No |
|
|
|
|
Warnell School of Forestry 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
No |
|
Washington State |
No |
|
|
|
No |
|
|
Wisconsin 1 |
|
No |
|
|
|
|
|
Wyoming |
No |
|
|
|
|
|
1 Blank spaces indicate no report was received from a given University
for the specific discipline. Universities designated with 1 reported a
post-tenure or extended review process.
2 Texas A&M is in the developmental stages of post-tenure review.
Table 2. Departments Reporting Quantitative
Post-Tenure Review Criteria
2001.
|
ReportingUniversity
|
Ag. Econ |
Animal Science |
Engineering |
Entomology |
Food Science |
Forestry |
|
Arkansas 1 |
|
|
|
|
No |
|
|
Auburn |
|
|
|
|
|
No |
|
Clemson 1 |
|
|
No |
No |
|
No |
|
Colorado State1 |
Yes 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Connecticut |
|
No |
|
|
|
|
|
Cornell 1 |
|
|
No |
|
No |
|
|
Florida 1 |
No |
|
No |
No |
|
|
|
Georgia 1 |
No |
|
|
No |
|
No |
|
Idaho 1 |
No |
No |
|
|
|
|
|
Illinois 1 |
No |
No |
No |
|
No |
|
|
Iowa State 1 |
|
No |
|
|
No |
|
|
Kansas State 1 |
|
No |
|
|
|
|
|
Kentucky 1 |
|
No |
|
|
No |
|
|
LSU |
|
No |
No |
|
|
No |
|
Maryland 1 |
No |
|
|
|
No |
|
|
Massachusetts |
|
|
|
|
No |
|
|
Minnesota 1 |
|
|
|
|
No |
|
|
Mississippi State |
|
|
|
|
|
No |
|
Missouri 1 |
No |
No |
|
|
No |
|
|
Nebraska 1 |
|
No |
|
|
|
|
|
New Hampshire |
No |
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Mexico State |
No |
|
|
|
|
|
|
NC State 1 |
No |
Yes 2 |
|
No |
No |
No |
|
North Dakota State |
No |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ohio State 1 |
No |
|
|
|
No |
|
|
Oklahoma State |
|
No |
No |
|
|
|
|
Oregon State |
No |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Penn State 1 |
No |
No |
|
|
|
|
|
Purdue |
No |
|
|
|
No |
|
|
Rutgers |
|
|
|
No |
|
No |
|
Santa Clara U |
No |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Texas A&M 1 |
|
No |
No |
|
|
No |
|
Texas Tech |
No |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Utah State 1 |
Yes 2 |
|
|
|
|
Yes2 |
|
Virginia Tech |
No |
|
No |
|
|
|
|
Warnell School of Forestry 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
No |
|
Washington State |
No |
|
|
|
No |
|
|
Wisconsin 1 |
|
No |
|
|
|
|
|
Wyoming |
No |
|
|
|
|
|
1 Blank spaces indicate no report was received from a given University
for the specific discipline. Universities designated with 1 reported a
post-tenure or extended review process.
2 Yes or no designates whether criteria guidelines are quantitative.
In summary, the survey revealed the Departments of Agricultural Economics and
Forestry at Utah State and the Animal Science Department at NC State are the
only departments in the survey which use quantitative criteria for post-tenure
review. CPR guidelines are under review at Colorado State.
10/26/01
[ Top ]
|