The University of Arizona

Continuing Status/Continuing Eligible Academic Professional Annual Performance Review

Processes, Criteria, and Measures, May, 2015 (Draft IV, 04.24.14, 4:00pm)

I. INTRODUCTION

Continuing status/continuing eligible academic professionals of the University of Arizona are evaluated with respect to all personnel matters on the basis of their performance. The annual performance review is intended to support continuing status/continuing eligible academic professionals in achieving excellence in the performance of their duties and responsibilities. It provides a basis for the assessment and enhancement of academic professionals' performance as well as accountability to the people of Arizona.

The function of the review is both formative and summative: it involves continuing status/continuing eligible academic professionals in the design of their own performance expectations within the context of the department's mission, and it provides a peer and administrative review process to evaluate the success of each year's work. More specifically, this formal review is intended:

  • To involve continuing status/continuing eligible academic professionals in the design and evaluation of objectives and goals of their academic programs and in the identification of the performance expectations central to their own personal and professional growth;
  • To assess actual performance and accomplishment in the areas of teaching, research/scholarly activity, and professional service through the use of peer and administrative review;
  • To promote the effectiveness of continuing status/continuing status eligible academic professionals through an articulation of the types of contributions they might make that enhance the University's mission;
  • To provide a written record of continuing status/continuing eligible academic professionals' performance to support personnel decisions;
  • To recognize and maximize the special talents, capabilities and achievements of continuing status/continuing eligible academic professionals; and
  • To assist continuing status/continuing eligible academic professionals in improving their contributions in any areas where performance is considered by their peers to be below expectations.

The purpose of this document is to specify the processes, criteria, and measures used in the Department of Mathematics to achieve the goals of the annual performance review, and to clarify the relationship of this review to the promotion & continuing status processes which apply to academic professionals.

It is intended that this document be consistent with applicable portions of the Arizona Board of Regents Policy Manual (ABORPM) and the University Handbook for Appointed Personnel (UHAP). In case of conflict, the provisions of UHAP and of ABORPM shall prevail. In general, the annual performance review is covered by the ABORPM 6-304 and by UHAP 4A.2. Promotion and continuing status processes are described in UHAP 4A.3 and 4A.4.

II. PROCESS

A. Period of Review and Submission Guidelines

Annual performance reviews for continuing status/continuing eligible academic professionals are conducted each year beginning in January, with the Performance Review Committee's written evaluation finished by March 15. The annual review will cover the previous five years of activity, with emphasis on the past one- to two-years' work for the evaluation of teaching. Each academic professional shall submit an annual report to the department head no later than February 1 of each year. The report shall list the objectives for the current reporting period as previously agreed to, describe contributions of the academic professional to the academic mission of the department during the previous five calendar years (or period of service if less than five years), and state objectives for the next calendar year. The report shall describe all contributions in each of the three areas, teaching, research, and service, specifying which are within the academic professional’s Position Specific Responsibilities. A copy of the Position Specific Responsibilities document for the current year should be attached to the report. This report shall serve as the primary source of information for review by the Performance Review Committee and department head.

B. Performance Ratings

Academic professionals shall be rated in each of the three primary areas of responsibility (teaching, research/scholarly activity, and service/outreach) according to a five-level scale. The relative weight assigned to each of these categories shall be determined by the workload assignments (see item II.C below). An overall rating shall also be given according to the same scale. The term “satisfactory or better” refers to any of the top four ratings.

DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS

ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW
RATING SCALE

 

Performance Rating

Continuing Status/Continuing Eligible Academic Professional Development: Improvement Action*

Compensation Action




Overall

Satisfactory

Truly exceptional

Exceeds expectations

Meets expectations
 


Needs improvement

 

Departmental and UA support for growth and development


 


Departmental and UA support for remedial improvement of performance*

 

Eligible for available salary increases





 


May be eligible for certain salary increases

 

Overall Unsatisfactory

Unsatisfactory Mandated performance improvement plan for Continuing Status/Continuing Eligible Academic Professionals  No salary increase unless required by State law

*Academic professionals who are “overall satisfactory” but deficient in a single area may be required to enter a development plan.

C. Workload Assignments

Workload assignments and Position Specific Responsibilities for individual academic professionals are designed to assure completion of the department's mission. They are determined annually by the department head and the academic professional and are described in the workload agreement. It is expected that workload assignments will vary in accordance with the strengths and expertise of individual academic professionals, and may change as careers progress.  Periods of time spent on sabbatical leave or leave without pay for academic reasons are evaluated according to the success of the program outlined in the sabbatical application or leave request.

D. Roles of the Performance Review Committee and Department Head 

The rules for membership on the Committee and structure of the Committee are given in the Department Procedures and Policies.

Each continuing status/continuing eligible academic professional shall be independently reviewed by at least three tenured faculty members of the Performance Review Committee, at least one of whom shall be a representative of that academic professional's general research area.

The Performance Review Committee shall evaluate each academic professional on the basis of information provided by the academic professional, peer evaluators, colleagues,  students, and other information that the Performance Review Committee might request.  It is not, however, the Committee's responsibility to search for information that might reasonably be expected from the academic professional, such as teaching evaluations or written student comments. A written report shall be prepared by the Performance Review Committee for each academic professional and transmitted directly to the department head. This report shall include the academic professional's rating in each of the three evaluation categories, if appropriate under the workload agreement, and an overall rating weighted according to the workload agreement. If the primary reviewers collectively propose that a rating of T, N or U should be given in any category to an academic professional, then this shall be discussed and, if needed, voted upon by the entire Committee. If the consensus of the Committee is to approve this rating, then a brief written statement explaining why this evaluation is being recommended shall be composed and forwarded to the department head. Also, if the primary reviewers cannot agree upon a common rating in some evaluation category for an academic professional, then this case shall be discussed and voted upon by the entire Committee.  The Performance Review Committee and the department head may meet to discuss ratings and resolve disagreements, should any exist. The department head shall provide each academic professional with a written evaluation as well as a summary of the Performance Review Committee's evaluation.

The department head and academic professional  meet no later than March 31, if possible, to discuss the head's written evaluation, and to agree upon goals, assignments, and expectations for the next annual review. The academic professional  provides comments, signs the document, and returns it to the department head within 10 days of this meeting. Disagreements between the academic professional and the department head about either the evaluation or the work assignment shall be mediated by the Performance Review Committee. If this mediation process fails, an appeal may be made to the dean. 

III.  ACTIVITIES, MEASURES, AND CRITERIA 

A. Teaching

Activities that count towards teaching may be listed in the academic professional's Position Specific Responsibilities. Additional activities that  are considered to be positive contributions to the department's teaching mission may include, but are not limited to:

  • teaching regular course offerings
  • developing course materials
  • developing replicable systems of instruction (e.g. designing computer assisted learning modules or TA-instructed laboratories)
  • coordinating or team-teaching a multidisciplinary course
  • coordinating a multisection course
  • supervising independent study courses or seminars
  • supervising honors theses
  • supervising instruction by TA's
  • supervising undergraduate research
  • mentoring graduate students
  • implementing innovative technology or methodology for instruction
  • developing and applying educational innovations in the classroom
  • helping students to improve communication and presentation skills
  • developing instructional or design projects
  • seeking improvement of one's own teaching

Measures used to assess the quantity and quality of these activities may include, but are not limited to:

  • published student evaluations
  • written student evaluations of teaching
  • follow-up interviews with students
  • peer and administrative review of material presented in the annual report and/or an associated teaching portfolio
  • self evaluation
  • peer classroom visits
  • opinions of teaching assistants
  • special honors or recognition for teaching excellence or innovation
  • support from directors of relevant interdisciplinary programs
  • adoption of teaching materials which are used by the department or by other units

A rating of “meets expectations” in teaching requires that there be an appropriate balance of teaching-related Position Specific Responsibilities and teaching activities as described above, and that the preponderance of evidence from student, peer, and administrative assessments indicates competent performance of these duties. The rating will be based on the quality and quantity of these activities, as well as consideration of workload percentages.

A rating of “exceeds expectations”  requires greater than average achievements in teaching activities, consistent with the academic professional's workload assignments and with the performance levels of other instructors in the department. Examples of some of these activities or recognitions that might lead to such a rating are: Teaching awards; design of new courses; creative coordination of multi-section courses; extensive supervision or mentoring of undergraduate research; consistently strong recommendations from students; documentation of students' success in later courses.

A rating of “truly exceptional” requires major additional contributions, and would indicate that career milestones in teaching have been achieved. Examples include, but are not limited to: A major, university- wide or national teaching award; innovative course materials adopted at other institutions.

B. Research/Scholarly Activity

The research/scholarly activity function of the department requires academic professionals to be actively engaged in the expansion of intellectual and scholarly frontiers. Scholarly activity of academic professionals is to be interpreted in the broadest possible sense, consistent with the research mission of the University. It should reflect, but not be limited by, their specific job description.

Activities that count towards research and scholarship may be listed in the academic professional’s Position Specific Responsibilities. Additional activities that are considered to be positive contributions include, but are not limited to:

  • engaging in ongoing programs of research
  • investigating relevant problems in education or the mathematical sciences
  • obtaining grants and contracts or other outside support for projects
  • producing deliverable systems (e.g. hardware, software, algorithms, etc. as well as the technical reports describing these deliverables)
  • producing resources, such as curricular units, professional development modules, or assessments, to be used in K-12 mathematics education
  • obtaining patents or royalties
  • publishing books, book chapters, peer-reviewed journal articles, peer-reviewed conference papers, monographs, and invited abstracts and reviews
  • presenting invited talks at conferences, workshops, colloquia, seminars, or poster sessions
  • contributing non-refereed publications, for example: expository articles, workshop materials, and opinion pieces 

Measures used to assess the quantity and quality of these activities may include, but are not limited to:

  • peer and administrative review of material presented in the annual report
  • self evaluation
  • awards and honors
  • extent and frequency of external funding
  • adoption of research-based curricular or teaching materials which are used by the department or by other units
  • invitations to present and deliver short courses, seminars or lectures to external audiences
  • reputation of peer-reviewed journals where scholarly articles are published

A rating of “meets expectations” in research/scholarly activity requires an appropriate balance of research/scholarly activities listed in the Position Specific Responsibilities and other research/scholarly activities as described above. The rating will be based on the quality and quantity of these activities, consideration of the academic professional’s workload percentages, variations among different research areas, and comparison with general trends in peer mathematics departments. For example, infrequent publications of comprehensive papers might be judged equal to multiple publications that document the stage-by-stage progress of a project. In some circumstances, evidence of an academic professional’s long-term scholarly activity, such as a sustained record of invitations to scholarly meetings, short- or long-term visiting appointments, seminars, or colloquia, may be taken into account in this evaluation.

The rating of "exceeds expectations" requires additional high-quality contributions in several of the activities described above, consistent with the academic professional’s workload assignments and with the performance levels of other academic professionals in the department. Examples of activities and recognition that may lead to this rating include: Consistent publications in high-quality refereed journals over a five-year period combined with invitations to lecture on the published research; development of research-based textbooks or other curricular materials that have been widely adopted; a leading role in a research grant or major project.

The rating of "truly exceptional" would indicate that career milestones in research/scholarly activity, as indicated by recognition from outside the department, have been achieved: Examples of such activities are: National or international awards, addresses at the national or international level invited by established societies or programs, receipt of major grants, or multiple publications in journals of the highest quality.

C. Service/Outreach

Service is partitioned into areas of university service (participation in university activities other than teaching or research), professional service (voluntary activities with professional organizations in the academic professional’s discipline), and public or community service (outreach).

Activities that count towards service/outreach may be listed in the academic professional’s Position Specific Responsibilities. Additional activities that are considered to be positive contributions may include, but are not limited to:

  • serving on department, college, and/or university committees or subcommittees
  • serving on committees or boards for federal or state government agencies
  • activity in professional organizations in one's discipline, particularly in leadership roles
  • chairing any committee
  • serving in faculty governance roles
  • serving as editor of professional books and journals
  • reviewing, refereeing, and serving on grant panels
  • serving as a member of Masters or Ph.D. Dissertation committees including those for other departments and Graduate Interdisciplinary Programs
  • advising/mentoring graduate students outside of direct thesis or research advising
  • recruiting students into any campus program
  • advising undergraduate students on programs of study
  • recruiting and assisting with hiring of departmental personnel
  • mentoring colleagues
  • mentoring undergraduate students in various capacities
  • establishing effective relations with business, industry, other educational institutions, or government entities
  • organizing conferences or symposia
  • organizing activities that promote public awareness of one's discipline
  • providing academic expertise to the local, state, or national community
  • obtaining grants, contracts or other external support for developing and enhancing outreach activities and for promoting professional development

Measures used to assess the quantity and quality of these activities may include, but are not limited to:

  • peer and administrative review of material presented in the annual report
  • self evaluation
  • opinions of faculty and staff colleagues
  • opinions of university leaders, committee members or chairs
  • awards and honors
  • letters or certificates of public service
  • opinions of external communities (e.g., school district leaders, K-12 teachers, K-12 students, parents, civic leaders, industry leaders, and other expert constituencies)
  • extent and frequency of external funding.

A rating of "meets expectations" in service/outreach requires an appropriate balance of service/outreach activities listed in the Position Specific Responsibilities and other service/outreach activities as described above. The rating will be based on the quality and quantity of these activities, as well as consideration of workload percentages.

A rating of  “exceeds expectations” requires additional contributions in service/outreach activities. Examples of activities and recognition that may lead to this rating include: Officer of a national society; service on editorial boards or associate editor of a national or international journal, frequent reviewer for journals, membership on a grant review panel, extensive mentoring, major contributions to the department not rewarded by administrative salary supplements.

A rating of  “truly exceptional” requires outstanding accomplishments in service, as demonstrated by recognition from outside the department. Examples of types of recognition which could support this rating include appointment as head of a major unit or program on campus, president of a major national or international society, chief editor of a major national or international journal, or any other outstanding contributions.

D. Overall Rating

The overall rating assigned by the Performance Review Committee and the department head shall be determined by the three individual ratings consistent with the workload assignment and with the mission and goals of the department. Since the individual ratings are themselves influenced (with regard to quantity of production) by the workload assignment, a rating of “unsatisfactory” in two of the three individual areas would normally dictate an overall rating of “unsatisfactory”. It is important to note, however, that academic professionals can need improvement in one or more areas, but still may not be rated as “unsatisfactory” overall (see II.B. Performance Ratings).

IV. OUTCOMES OF THE REVIEW PROCESS

A. General Expectations

Given the high quality of the department and the determinative role of the workload assignments agreed to in advance, it is expected that ratings of unsatisfactory in any of the three areas will be very rare and that an overall unsatisfactory rating will be even more unlikely. A small fraction of the continuing status/continuing eligible academic professionals may be identified from time to time as needing improvement, and it is expected that development support from the department and university, as well as mentoring by others in the department, will assist those individuals in quickly regaining the expected levels of productivity. While some continuing status/continuing eligible academic professionals will from time to time receive a rating of truly exceptional in one of the three areas, an overall rating of truly exceptional would be unusual. Thus it is anticipated that academic professionals will meet or exceed expectations, in the individual areas as well as overall.

B. Rewards

As shown in II.B. Performance Ratings, those continuing status/continuing eligible academic professionals with overall ratings in the top three categories will be eligible for available salary increases as well as for support for growth and development and other rewards that may be made available. This applies to continuing eligible academic professionals as well as to continuing status academic professionals. The algorithm for determining allocation of these rewards will be decided upon by the department head in consultation with the associate head(s) and/or other faculty members as he or she may deem appropriate. This allocation shall be subject to any external constraints that may apply. Those continuing status/continuing eligible academic professionals with an overall rating in the fourth category will be eligible for departmental and university support for remedial improvement of performance, and may be eligible for certain salary increases (e.g. cost-of- living raises). Continuing status/continuing eligible academic professional receiving an overall unsatisfactory rating will not be eligible for any salary increases unless required by State law, but may receive departmental and university support for improvement of performance.

C. Relationship to Continuing Status Processes

Continuing eligible academic professionals are to participate in the continuing status processes described in  UHAP 4A.3.  Satisfactory ratings in the annual performance reviews do not necessarily indicate successful progress toward promotion and continuing status. Progress toward promotion and continuing status requires scholarly accomplishment over a period of years in the broader range of continuing status/continuing eligible academic professional responsibilities, and includes evaluation by external referees, which is not a part of the annual review process. Criteria and decisions with regard to promotion and continuing status are detailed in  UHAP 4A.3.02.

For continuing status academic professionals, the annual review is NOT intended to be a continuing status review; it is simply an opportunity to assess progress toward the goals outlined in  Article I of this document. Those continuing status academic professionals who receive a rating of unsatisfactory in any of the three individual areas, or an overall rating of unsatisfactory, however, are required to participate in the post-continuing status processes described in  UHAP 4A.2.04 and  4A.2.05.

D. Expectations for the Next Review Year

Criteria for annual performance must consider teaching effectiveness, research and scholarly activity, and service/outreach as balanced in the workload assignment. The evaluation criteria are intended to provide for recognition of long-term continuing status/continuing eligible academic professional activities and outcomes. Concentration of effort in one of the three major areas of academic professional responsibilities over a period of time is permissible, and may even be encouraged if the effort furthers the overall departmental mission.

These guidelines are designed to be flexible enough to meet the objectives of the Mathematics Department, while at the same time advancing the objectives of the College of Science and the University. It is important that each continuing status/continuing eligible academic professional have goals, assignments, and expectations for the next annual review, as agreed to according to the process specified in Article II, and that these agreements be documented in writing.

Department of Mathematics, The University of Arizona 617 N. Santa Rita Ave. P.O. Box 210089 Tucson, AZ 85721-0089 USA Voice: (520) 621-6892 Fax: (520) 621-8322 Contact Us © Copyright 2018 Arizona Board of Regents All rights reserved