Kent State Stark Criteria for FTNTTFaculty Simplified or Abbreviated Performance Review | Stark Faculty Handbook | Kent State University

Kent State Stark Criteria for FTNTTFaculty Simplified or Abbreviated Performance Review

Per Article X, Section 8 of the Full-time Non-tenure Track Faculty Collective Bargaining Agreement, after nine (9) twelve (12) and fifteen (15) years of consecutive appointments, FTNTT Faculty members shall undergo a simplified performance review”. While acknowledging the varied contributions and responsibilities of FTNTT faculty members, classroom instruction is the principal responsibility of an FTNTT faculty member in the Instructional Track, so the goal in the Simplified Performance Review is to document excellence in teaching. Fulfilling those minimal expectations and responsibilities required of all faculty members as delineated in Section V is necessary—but not sufficient—for continuing teaching excellence.

1.    The Simplified Performance Review file will be electronically submitted, and will normally include the following items:

a.    A narrative of up to five pages in which the candidate describes her or his professional activities during the past three years;

b.    An up-to-date curriculum vitae; and

c.    The summaries of Student Surveys of Instruction (SSI) for all courses taught during the period under review. SSI summaries include both numerical data and student written comments.

2.    At the candidate’s discretion, the Simplified Review file may include other materials that will clarify and/or enhance her or his record of continuing excellent teaching, including but not limited to:

a.    Past Performance Review letters, if any;

b.    A self-evaluation of the candidate’s teaching performance during the past three years;

c.    Recent peer teaching reviews;

d.    Samples of syllabi, examinations, assignments, study guides, and/or other course materials;

e.    Evidence that the candidate has remained current in the pedagogical theory of her or his discipline;

f.    Details of innovations in teaching, e.g., service learning or the use of learning technologies;

g.    Documentation of teaching awards or nominations;

h.    An account of scholarly or professional activity necessary to maintain professional standing in the discipline; and

i.    Assessments of other contributions beyond the contractual expectations for FTNTT faculty members.

3.    Evaluation Process Overview

Each year the performance review process necessarily has new candidates and new Performance Review Committee members who may be unfamiliar with the process and how to operationalize the criteria in reviews. This section provides a guide to how this can be done—without prescribing how it must be done—to facilitate evaluation consistency and to clarify expectations as committee recommendations are made to the Dean.

A candidate’s teaching performance can be evaluated using a three-rank scale of excellent, satisfactory, and unsatisfactory. Because of the differences among disciplines—and acknowledging the varied contributions and responsibilities of FTNTT faculty members—it is inappropriate to quantify absolutely the scale noted above. Based on the standards of the relevant discipline, the testimony provided by the candidate’s file, and the discussions during the committee meeting, each member of the committee must necessarily apply her or his own professional judgment in the review to make a vote of “yes,” “yes with concerns,” or “no.” Usually, a record of performance judged to be excellent receives a “yes” vote, while an unsatisfactory record receives a vote of “no.” A vote of “yes with concerns” may be warranted if a candidate’s record of performance is judged to be satisfactory in most respects, but is problematic in others. Examples of problematic aspects of a candidate’s record include, but are not limited to:

a.    A poorly organized or incomplete file;

b.    SSI scores on various dimensions of a candidate’s performance evidencing a recurring problem, e.g., showing disrespect to students or being unavailable for student consultation; and

c.    A recurring kind of student written complaint left unaddressed in the self-evaluation, e.g., “It took weeks to get our papers back.”

FTNTT candidates undergoing a simplified performance review are strongly encouraged to acknowledge these facts as they prepare their files and to explain fully why they think their teaching performance should be considered excellent or satisfactory.