Skip Navigation
Back 

Critical Success Factor 2 (2nd_ed)

Critical Success Factor 2 (2nd_ed)

(2) QUALITY OF FACULTY

(2A) ACADEMIC AND OTHER CREDENTIALS OF PROFESSORS AND INSTRUCTORS MEASURE
The quality of the faculty as represented by the academic and other credentials of professors and instructors is to be measured as:

  • the percent of all headcount faculty who teach undergraduate courses and who meet the criteria for faculty credentials of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS); and
  • the percent all headcount and (b) the percent of all full-time faculty teaching undergraduate courses who have terminal degrees as defined by SACS in their primary teaching area, or in the case of the technical college system, those who exceed minimum technical competence criteria.
DEFINITIONS / EXPLANATORY NOTES Faculty: All headcount faculty who teach one or more credit courses in the fall semester.

The criteria for SACS accreditation referred to is documented on pages 42-46 of the 1998 SACs publication entitled Criteria for Accreditation, Commission on Colleges,

Minimum Technical Competence Criteria refers to the technical competence criteria and training requirements established by the State Board for Technical and Comprehensive Education for non-general education faculty as allowed per SACs requirements.

Headcount faculty refers to full-time and part-time faculty members teaching credit courses in the fall semester. This measure applies to undergraduate courses only. Undergraduate courses will be defined using the CHEMIS variable COUR_LEVEL, codes one through four which include: remedial, lower division, upper division, and senior/graduate course leve ls.

For your reference see the relevant SACS Criteria (copied from the 1998 SACs publication, pages 43-46, and provided on the following pages).

Major Data Source: CHEMIS Faculty File

Applicable to: All Four Sectors

Type Indicator: Benchmarked

Expected Trend: Upward

Sector Benchmark:

Part 1 = 100%
Part 2 = None established for subpart (a) or subpart (b).

NOTES:

This measure was revised effective with Performance Year 1999-2000. Subpart 2A-2 was amended to correct an unintended consequence of the phrasing of the measure as initially defined. As initially defined, the measure excluded terminal degrees such as MFA and MSW because they did not 'exceed,' which is particularly disadvantageous for those institutions with strong programs in areas such as the fine arts and social work. Also, for this part of the measure, institutions will benchmark both the percent of headcount faculty who have technical degrees (subpart a) and also the percent of full-time faculty who have technical degrees (subpart b). The provision for the technical college system for exceeding minimum technical competence criteria, as defined by the SBTCE, is retained.

(2B) PERFORMANCE REVIEW SYSTEM FOR FACULTY TO INCLUDE STUDENT AND PEER EVALUATIONS MEASURE   The extent to which the criteria stipulated in the 'Best Practices for a Performance Review System for Faculty' document (see following pages) are incorporated into the institution's own performance review system. The measure is to be assessed by the following scale: Number of Items In Best Practices Addressed:

11/11     Exceeds
10/11     Achieves
9 or fewer/11     Does Not Achieve

Note: Subject to the approval of the Commission, this indicator will be measured every 3 years beginning with the 1998-1999 Performance Year.

DEFINITIONS / EXPLANATORY NOTES

Performance review system
: A documented system which provides for an annual evaluation of each faculty member's work to include teaching and research/creative activity as well as the faculty's contributions to the institution and the professional field.

Eligible Faculty: All institutional personnel holding faculty rank are included.

An institution must have in place an institutional plan for performance review which addresses the 'Best Practices for a Performance Review System for Faculty' as outlined on the following two pages. The institution will designate to the Commission which parts of the Best Practices document it has in place on its campus.

At the discretion of institutional policy, a peer review may be done by outside reviewers from either outside the department or the institution.

For item 8a, of the Best Practices for a Performance Review System for Faculty, the institution must administer an instruction and course evaluation for each course taught by a different instructor. If an instructor teaches more than one section of the same course, it is NOT REQUIRED that the evaluation be administered in each section, although an institution may elect to do so.

Evaluation of course and instructor does not need to be done for one-to-one courses (one student to one faculty member). Normally these courses are independent study courses.

The institution should develop an appropriate schedule for faculty review to ensure that all faculty are reviewed within the time periods set (three years for tenure track faculty; six years for tenured faculty). The institution may wish to stagger this schedule so that a certain percentage of its faculty is reviewed annually.

Major Data Source: Comparison by CHE of each institution's performance review

system to the 'Best Practices' criteria. (See the following page for a copy of the 'Best Practices' document.)

Applicable to: All Four Sectors

Type Indicator: Criterion-Referenced

Expected Trend: Performance as measured by the indicated scale.

Sector Benchmark: Not applicable.

NOTES:

This measure was revised effective with Performance Year 1999-2000. The measure was changed from a benchmarked indicator to a criterion-referenced indicator as indicated above.

INDICATOR 2B:

BEST PRACTICES FOR A PERFORMANCE REVIEW SYSTEM FOR FACULTY

1.    The performance reviewsystem must meet the 'Criteria and Procedures for Evaluation,' Section 4.8.10 ofthe Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, which stipulate that: (1) an institutionmust conduct periodic evaluations of the performance of individual faculty members; (2)the evaluation must include a statement of the criteria against which the performance ofeach faculty member will be measured; (3) the criteria must be consistent with the purposeand goals of the institution and be made known to all concerned; and (4) the institutionmust demonstrate that it uses the results of this evaluation for improvement of thefaculty and its educational program.

2.    The performance reviewsystem should be both formative (designed to be a supportive process that promotesself-improvement) and summative (assesses and judges performance).

3.    The performance reviewsystem process and criteria should be explained to new hires.

4.    All faculty, includingtenured faculty at all ranks, are reviewed annually and receive a written performanceevaluation. In this way, for those institutions with a tenure system, the performancereview system should not pose a threat to the tenure system but extends and enlarges it.

5.    The performance reviewsystem should have been developed jointly by the faculty and administrators of aninstitution.

6.    The performance reviewsystem should allow for discipline-specific components.

7.    The performance reviewsystem should provide opportunities for reflection, feedback, and professional growthwhose goal is to enhance instruction at the institution.

8.    The performance reviewsystem should include written performance evaluation data from four sources:

        (a)Annually - instruction and course evaluation forms completed anonymously by studentsthrough a standardized institutional process and submitted for each course (not section)taught;

        (b)Annually - evaluation which includes assessments from the department chair and/or dean;

        (c)At least every three years for tenure track faculty - internal peer evaluations, i.e.,evaluation of faculty by their peers within the institution of higher education;

        (d)At least every six years, for tenured tenure track faculty - input from peers external tothe department and/or institution as appropriate to the role and function of each facultymember. External evaluators to the institution include national peers from the same fieldof expertise from other institutions of higher education, professional organizations andsocieties, federal agencies, etc. Specialized national accreditations and the CHE programreviews, which include external reviewers' assessments, could be incorporated into theexternal peer review component, where appropriate.

9.    At an institutionallevel, the performance review system must include the following criteria as appropriate tothe institution's mission:

instruction/teaching advisement and mentoring of students graduate student supervision supervision of other students (teaching assistants, independent study students) course/curriculum development research/creative activities activities which support the economic development of the region or the State publications service to department service to institution service to community participation in professional organizations/associations honors, awards, and recognitions self-evaluation participation in faculty development activities/programs

10.     The results of each performancereview, including post-tenure review, must be used by the institution as part of itsfaculty reward system and faculty development system, and the system should include a planfor development when deficiencies are indicated in the review. Specifically: (a) when an instructor (in the Tech system) or untenured faculty member receives an overall rating of unsatisfactory on the annual performance review, the faculty member may be subject to non-reappointment;

(b) when an instructor (in the Tech system) or tenured faculty member receives an overall rating of unsatisfactory on the annual performance review, the faculty member is immediately subject to a development process, developed by the specific unit, whose goal is to restore satisfactory performance. The development process will include a written plan with performance goals in deficient areas, with appropriate student and peer evaluation of performance.

(c) when an instructor (in the Tech system) or a tenured faculty member fails to make substantial progress towards the performance goals at the time of the next annual review or fails to meet the performance goals specified in the development plan within a specified period, that faculty member will be subject to dismissal (in the Tech system) or revocation of tenure for habitual neglect of duty under the terms of the senior institution's faculty manual.

11.    The institution should develop anappeals procedure for those faculty who do not agree with the results the performanceevaluation and/or the resulting recommendations or requirements for improvement.

(2C) POST-TENURE REVIEW FOR TENURED FACULTY MEASURE

The extent to which the criteria stipulated in the 'Best Practices for Post-tenure Review' document (see following pages) are incorporated into the institution's own performance review system.

The measure is assessed by the following scale:

Number of Items in Best Practices Addressed:

9/9 Exceeds
8/9 Achieves
7 or fewer/9 Does Not Achieve

Note: Subject to approval by the Commission, this indicator will be measured every 3 years beginning with the 1998-1999 Performance Year.

DEFINITIONS / EXPLANATORY NOTES Performance Review System: A documented system which provides for an annual evaluation of each faculty member's work to include teaching and research/creative activity as well as the faculty's members contributions to the institution and the professional field. This evaluation should involve time for reflection, discussion, and feedback, and should provide for the professional development of the faculty member.

Post-tenure Review: A systematic annual peer evaluation of tenured faculty in terms of teaching, research/creative activity and service. A cohort shall be established of which a percentage shall be evaluated annually by external peers, such that the entire cohort of tenured faculty is reviewed every six years. Such reviews are not to undermine tenure but to enhance the continued professional development of faculty.

Eligible Faculty: Includes all faculty who have received tenure, but does not include those faculty who have undergone tenure review within the past year. It also may EXCLUDE, at the discretion of the institution, those tenured faculty members whose primary responsibility is administrative such as deans, vice presidents, and presidents.

An institution must have in place an institutional plan for post-tenure review system which addresses the 'Best Practices for Post Tenure Review.' The institution will designate to the Commission which specific parts of the Best Practices document they have in place on their campus.

The institution should develop an approximate schedule for faculty reviews to ensure that tenured faculty are reviewed every six years. The institution may wish to develop a schedule of staggered reviews so that a certain percent of tenured faculty is reviewed annually. Major Data Source: Comparison by the Commission on Higher Education of each institution's post-tenure review evaluation system to the 'Best Practices' criteria. (See following pages for the document.)

Applicable to: Research, Teaching and Regional Sectors.

    (Not applicable for the Technical Colleges)

Type Indicator: Criterion-Referenced

Expected Trend: Performance as measured by the indicated scale

Sector Benchmark: Not Applicable

NOTES:

This measure was revised effective with Performance Year 1999-2000. The measure was changed from a benchmarked indicator to a criterion-referenced indicator as indicated above.

Additionally, the number of the items in the 'Best Practices' document were reduced from 12 to 9 items. Items previously designated as 1, 2, and 4 have been re-stated as 'Guiding Principles (A, B, and C)' with the remaining items renumbered from one to nine.

BEST PRACTICES FOR POST-TENURE REVIEW

BEST PRACTICES:

1. The post-tenure review should incorporate annual performance reviews accumulated since the initial tenure review or since the last post-tenure review.

2. Statewide, each tenured faculty member will have a post-tenure review conducted at pre-established, published intervals of no more than six years, unless the faculty member is participating in a development/improvement process in which case the review may be conducted more frequently.

3. If reviews for promotion (e.g., a tenured associate professor is reviewed for promotion to tenured full professor) fall within the appropriate time interval and encompass all the indicators in this document and in the 'Best Practices for a Performance Review System for Faculty' document, they may constitute a post-tenure review.

4. The post-tenure review must include evaluations from peers external to the department and/or institution as appropriate to the role and function of each faculty member (usually to evaluate the quality of research), as well as internal peer evaluations, student evaluations, and administrative evaluations.

5. The post-tenure review must provide detailed information about the outcomes of any sabbatical leave awarded during the six-year post-tenure review period.

6. The institution must identify the means by which the post-tenure review is linked with faculty reward systems, including merit raises and promotion.

7. The institution must display a commitment to provide funds to reward high achievers on post-tenure reviews as well as to provide assistance to faculty members needing improvement.

8. If a faculty member receives an unfavorable post-tenure review, the faculty member is immediately subject to a development process as described in the 'Best Practices for a Performance Review System for 'faculty', as outlined in 10(b) and 10(c) of that document.

9. The institution should develop an appeals procedure for those faculty who do not agree with the results of the post-tenure review evaluation and/or the resulting recommendations or requirements for improvement.

(2D) COMPENSATION OF FACULTY

MEASURE
Average faculty salary by rank (instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, and professor).

For Technical Colleges, which do not utilize ranking of faculty, the measure is the average of faculty salaries.

DEFINITIONS / EXPLANATORY NOTES

Faculty is defined for four-year institutions by College and University Personnel Administrators (CUPA) instructions and for two-year institutions by Integrated Post Secondary Educational Data System (IPEDS) salaries survey instructions.

Average salary is defined as nine to ten month salaries (or eleven to twelve months salaries converted to nine to ten months salaries).

Two-year Regional institutions and Technical Colleges should refer to the IPEDS salary report for faculty definition.

Four-year institutions should refer to the CUPA salary report for faculty definition.

Major Data Source: Annual salary surveys submitted to CUPA and IPEDS and other relevant data sources via CHEMIS Faculty File.

Applicable to: All Four Sectors

Type Indicator: Benchmarked

Expected Trend: Upward

Sector Benchmark: Sector Benchmarks are based on the most recently available
national data adjusted for inflation. The chart shows sector benchmarks applicable for 1999-00. SECTOR     Instructor     Asst. Prof.     Assoc. Prof.     Full Prof. Research     (Pending)     (Pending)         (Pending)         (Pending) Teaching     (Pending)     (Pending)         (Pending)         (Pending) Regional     (Pending)     (Pending)         (Pending)         (Pending) Technical* $46,034        N/A                 N/A                 N/A

*Instructor applies to all faculty for Technical Colleges.

NOTES:

This measure was revised effective with Performance Year 1999-2000. The measure was changed from one overall average for faculty salaries to averages displayed by the ranks of instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, and professor, with the sector benchmark being the national peer average by rank. The change in measure has no impact on the technical colleges, which do not have a system of faculty rank.

(2E) AVAILABILITY OF FACULTY TO STUDENTS OUTSIDE OF THE CLASSROOM MEASURE

A two part measure which includes:

1)the percent of instructional faculty who receive a mean rating of 'satisfied' or above on a standardized question using a standardized scale administered in a prescribed manner on anonymous student evaluations which are submitted for all courses; and

2) the percent of students who report satisfaction with the availability of academic advisors outside the classroom as shown by a mean rating of 'satisfied' or above on an anonymous evaluation instrument completed at a minimum during the spring term by a representative sample of freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors.

Each part is assessed by the following scale. (The scores on each part are averaged together for one overall score for this measure.)

Survey results of:

90% - 100%         Exceeds
80% - 89%           Achieves
79% and below    Does Not Achieve

Note: Subject to approval by the Commission, this indicator will be measured every 2 years beginning with the 1998-1999 Performance Year. Institutions are encouraged to administer Part 1 every year as part of course evaluations, even if the results are not reported that year to the Commission for rating purposes.

DEFINITIONS / EXPLANATORY NOTES
Availability Outside the Classroom: Includes personal contact between faculty and students during office hours and other scheduled appointments as well as contact through e-mail, internet, telephone, correspondence, and other media.

Faculty advisors are those faculty or staff who advise students with respect to their course schedules and degree requirements.

This measure involves two different questions to be administered by the institution to its students. The first question evaluates students' satisfaction with the availability of their instructor outside the classroom. The second question evaluates the students' satisfaction with the availability of academic advisors outside of the classroom.

For Part 1 (the percent of instructional faculty with a mean rating of satisfied), this instrument should be administered in the summer term(s), but the summer results will not be reported to CHE. This measure should be calculated by determining the percent of faculty with an average rating of 3 (satisfied) or above (i.e., the number of faculty teaching in the fall who receive a rating of 3 (satisfied) or above and dividing that number by the total number of faculty teaching in the fall.) The data should not be calculated by simply determining the percent of surveys with a response of 3 (satisfied) or above. Part 1 should be administered in all academic terms including summer. Ratings will be based on the fall administration only.

For Part 2 (the percent of students satisfied with the availability of academic advisors), this instrument should be administered in the spring semester to a representative sample, for the four year institutions this includes freshmen, sophomore, junior and seniors (in the case of the regional and technical colleges a representative sample of the student population). The instrument should not be administered in courses which the faculty student ratio is 1:1. Data for part 2 is calculated as a percent of surveys that were returned with a rating of 3 (satisfied) or above.

Non-responses should not be included in the calculations.

Because response rates are affected by the ordering of a response scale, the ordering of the response scale should not be changed from the scale stated in the two standardized questions. However, the Commission understands that in some cases the questions are being added to already established questionnaires or questionnaires with pre-printed directions concerning the response scale which do not accommodate the scale used in the two standardized questions. If that is the case, the institution should submit a copy of their questionnaire which includes these two standardized questions and explain why the institution could not accommodate the questions as they are stated with the stated response scale and directions. Otherwise, in administering the questions, there should be no changes made to the questions from those questions stated.

The Commission will be reviewing the administration of the questions and making recommendations to ensure consistency across institutions. Major Data Source: Annual reporting on the results of administration as two standardized questions. See following pages for details.

Applicable to: All Four Sectors

Type Indicator: Criterion-referenced

Expected Trend: Performance as measured by the indicated scale Sector Benchmark: Not Applicable NOTES: The scale for rating this measure was revised in March 1999 to remain consistent with system changes.

2E1: Availability of faculty to students outside the classroom

With regard to satisfaction of students with the availability of courseinstructors, the following question is suggested for inclusion in a course evaluation:

Please indicate your satisfaction with the availability of the instructoroutside the classroom by choosing one response from the scale below.  (Inselecting your rating, consider the instructor's availability via establishedoffice hours, appointments, and other opportunities for face-to-face interactionas well as via telephone, e-mail, fax, and other means.)1 - VeryDissatisfied    2-Dissafisfied   3-Satisfied    4-Very Satisfied RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION OF THE EVALUATION
  • All faculty are required to administer the evaluation instrument in all courses except those in which the faculty-student ratio is one-to-one.
  • In team-taught courses the evaluation shall be administered for each faculty member.
  • Guidelines for administration are as follows:
  • Administer during class time.
  • Read standardized written instructions to the students. Instructions should include a statement as to how the results of the evaluation will be used.
  • The professor leaves the room while the students complete the evaluation.
  • A designated student hands out forms, collects forms, and delivers the completed forms to the appropriate designated location (not the instructor).
  • Evaluations are completed anonymously.
  • Professors will not receive the feedback until grades have been turned in to the Registrar.
  • Student should have a mechanism to confidentially inform administrators of instructors who fail to follow procedures.
  • The administration should take steps to address and deal with the problem of some professors not administering the evaluation instrument.
2E2: Availability of Academic Advisors outside the Classroom

With regard to the availability of academic advisors, the following question is suggested:

 

Please indicate your satisfaction with the availability of your academic advisor by choosing one response from the scale below. (In selecting your rating, consider the advisor's availability via office hours, appointments, and other opportunities for face-to-face interaction as well as via telephone, e-mail, and other means.)

1 Very Dissatisfied

2 Dissatisfied

3 Satisfied

4 Very Satisfied

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION OF THE EVALUATION

1. Surveys should be conducted on an annual basis.

2. Surveys should be conducted during the Spring semester, in order to allow freshmen students to have enough experience with their advisors to be able to reliably evaluate the item.

3. Surveys should allow the student to remain anonymous.

4. Surveys should be conducted in one of the two following manners, as deemed appropriate by the institution:

Survey of all students
Survey of a statistically valid, representative sample which samples freshmen, sophomores, juniors and seniors.

5. Results of the item should be reported by total group and by class-level.

(2F) COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC SERVICE ACTIVITIES OF FACULTY FOR WHICH NO EXTRA COMPENSATIONIS PAID

As a result of consideration of revisions during performance year 1998-99, this measurewas incorporated with the measure for Indicator 2B, Performance Review System forFaculty, (see page 27) to create a single measure and score for the combinedindicators.