Compliance
Certification
Core Requirements
2.1 | 2.2 | 2.3 | 2.4 | 2.5 | 2.6 | 2.7.1 | 2.7.2 | 2.7.3 | 2.7.4 | 2.8 | 2.9 | 2.10 | 2.11

Quality Enhancement Plan
2.12

Comprehensive Standards
3.1.1 (Mission)

3.2.1 | 3.2.2 | 3.2.3 | 3.2.4 | 3.2.5 | 3.2.6 | 3.2.7 | 3.2.8 | 3.2.9 | 3.2.10 | 3.2.11 | 3.2.12 | 3.2.13 | 3.2.14 (Admin.)

3.3.1 (Effectiveness)

3.4.1 | 3.4.2 | 3.4.3 | 3.4.4 | 3.4.5 | 3.4.6 | 3.4.7 | 3.4.8 | 3.4.9 | 3.4.10 | 3.4.11 | 3.4.12 | 3.4.13 | 3.4.14 (Educational Program)

3.5.1 | 3.5.2 (Undergraduate Program)

3.7.1 | 3.7.2 | 3.7.3 | 3.7.4 | 3.7.5 (Faculty)

3.8.1 | 3.8.2 | 3.8.3 (Library)

3.9.1 | 3.9.2 | 3.9.3 (Students)

3.10.1 | 3.10.2 | 3.10.3 | 3.10.4 | 3.10.5 | 3.10.6 | 3.10.7 (Resources)

Federal Requirements
4.1 | 4.2 | 4.3 | 4.4 | 4.5 | 4.6 | 4.7 | 4.8

>Signature Page
>Summary Report
>Report Abstract

Link to Quality
Enhancement
Plan (PDF)

References & Resources

Home

Davidson > Administration > Home

Compliance Certification Report

Comprehensive Standard 3.7.2 - Evaluation of faculty

The institution regularly evaluates the effectiveness of each faculty member in accord with published criteria, regardless of contractual or tenured status.

Judgment of Compliance

Davidson College is in compliance with Comprehensive Standard 3.7.2.

Rationale for Judgment of Compliance

Overview
Davidson College has an established Code of Faculty Evaluation Procedures dating from March 14, 1979 [Revised: April 2, 1985 and October 4, 1988].  The Code sets forth the elements within regular evaluation, the time frames in which evaluation occurs, and the parties responsible for conducting and submitting these evaluations. The Board of Trustees defines the policy, entrusting the President with “special responsibility for the welfare of the enterprise as a whole.” The President, in turn, grants major responsibility to the Vice President for Academic Affairs and Dean of Faculty (VPAA) for determination of faculty needs; conducting searches to meet those needs; and carrying out recruitment, regular evaluation, and retention responsibilities. These are to be done in accordance with the College’s established criteria of excellence in teaching, superior professional attainments, and exemplary intellectual and moral values.  The “upward flow” of evaluation information to the VPAA begins at the student, faculty-colleague, department-chair level and, in cases of tenure review, includes the Faculty Tenure Committee and scholarship assessment by outside reviewers in the candidate’s field of expertise.  All faculty receive regular evaluation and those on “tenure-track” appointments receive intensive additional evaluation at key points within the renewal and tenure decision-making process. The time-table and nature of regular evaluations as well as those specific to given appointments include the following:

Recruitment
Tenure-Track Appointments:
Evaluation begins at the point of recruitment.  It is here that the College first determines that a prospective faculty member holds notable promise to exceed the College’s established evaluation criteria. Once a faculty need has been established and has been approved by the President acting on behalf of the Trustees, the Vice President for Academic Affairs (hereafter called the Vice President) gives the department or program chair responsibility for publicizing the position within the key professional journals in a given field and, wherever possible, conducting initial interviews at professional meetings.  Discipline-expertise criteria and teaching responsibilities are clearly outlined, applications and letters of recommendation are requested, and submission deadlines are set.  Departmental or program faculty review and evaluate applications, and once this process has been completed, the chair meets with reviewing faculty to discuss the top-rated candidates and formulate a recommendation to the Vice President.  The chair takes the folders of the top-rated candidates to the Vice President along with recommendations of which among them the department or program wishes to invite for campus interviews.  The Vice President evaluates the top group folders and communicates word to the chair or program director regarding which candidates are approved for campus interviews.  The chair or program director facilitates a campus visit which, in all instances, must include a meeting with the President and Vice President and typically will include a colloquium, meetings with each of the department/program faculty, meetings with a group of department/program students, and may include meetings with colleagues from other departments or programs.  The chair or program director solicits evaluative feedback from the students and faculty, communicating to the Vice President the candidate to whom the extension of a position offer is desired.  Accompanied by supporting documents, the Vice President conveys her/his judgment to the President who makes the final recommendation to the Trustees. If the campus interviews did not confirm the quality or perceived fit with College criteria, the department, program, Vice President, or President will elect to continue, close, or reschedule search continuance at a later date.

Upon hiring a tenure-track faculty member, the Vice President requests that the department or program chair name a senior-faculty mentor.  This mentor selection may be either within or outside the department or program.  Where outside-department mentoring becomes the practice, it carries the benefit of not becoming entangled in departmental or program renewal or tenure evaluations — in effect, freeing the new faculty member to relate to the mentor without fear of repercussions at a later date.  Once the mentor-match has been made, the department or program chair lets the mentoring relationship proceed in whatever way the two individuals wish and does not tap the mentor as a “feedback informant” at any future date.  

Visiting, One-Year Terminal, and Part-Time Appointments:
Recruitment for these positions does not require the established procedures outlined for tenure-track appointments.  Within the guidelines of College-established teaching, professional, and personal-integrity criteria, recruitment elements for these appointments are left to the discretion of the Vice President and the department or program chair. Visitors and one-year appointments are interviewed by the President. Like all faculty, however, these faculty are subject to the annual evaluation procedures conducted by the department or program chair and the Vice President, including student course evaluations.

Evaluation
Annual:
In January of each year, every tenure-track faculty member is required to submit to the Vice President and the department or program chair a Faculty Activities Report outlining the individual’s teaching, professional activities, and college/community activities for the calendar year just concluded. The Vice President’s report-request to each faculty member clearly delineates each of the three categories and the prescribed subcategories within which activities are to be reported.  Deadline for submission of these reports is mid-January.  Concurrent with report formulation, the Vice President requires that each department and program chair meet individually with each continuing member of the department or program to discuss accomplishments, to facilitate growth, and to establish goals for the coming year.  In any instance where such a meeting has not occurred, the Vice President asks to be so notified by the faculty member and the Vice President follows up accordingly. On the basis of these meetings and activities report review, the chair formulates an evaluation to the Vice President expressing the degree to which goals have been met or exceeded, and makes evaluative (non figure-based) salary recommendations for the coming year.  After reviewing Faculty Activities Reports and chair recommendations, the Vice President formulates and sends salary letters to faculty in April. 

At the conclusion of each semester, the Vice President sends course evaluation forms to every faculty member.  Within the last week or so of class, it is the faculty member’s duty to delegate the form distribution responsibility to a member of each respective class and to leave the classroom immediately thereafter. Students complete the evaluations anonymously. A previously designated student takes the completed forms to the Office of the Vice President.

This process both facilitates growth and evaluates.  In the first three years of a faculty member’s time here, the forms are returned to the professor for review as the faculty member plans, modifies, and changes elements and approaches in that course for a subsequent semester.  In the fourth year — by prior faculty member notification — the Vice President and the Chair review the course evaluations, following up with the faculty member in whatever ways are deemed important and appropriate.

• Vice President’s first-year meeting with new faculty members, explaining evaluation procedures and outlining expectations
• Vice President’s arrangement to attend one or more of the new faculty member’s classes with intent being to facilitate the faculty member’s adjustment and development of teaching skills.  Department or program chair may also elect to attend classes with comparable facilitation, adjustment, and growth-oriented intent.

Second- and Fourth-Year Renewal

•    Vice President —
• Meets with Chair during fall semester to discuss faculty member performance
• Solicits letters from each Department/Program colleague as well as faculty who have had committee or other substantive interactive experience with the faculty member
• Advises faculty member of review timing and solicits materials the faculty member considers germane to fair and balanced review
• Solicits at her/his discretion any other materials (e.g., interview et al.) deemed important to the review
• At her/his discretion may offer faculty member an opportunity to discuss any negative elements surfacing within the review process
• Reviews the faculty member’s performance with the President and makes renewal/non-renewal recommendation — President’s decision letter being sent to the faculty member by December 15

Every effort is made to carefully and intensely evaluate faculty members within both second- and fourth-year renewal, making non-renewal decisions within these reviews rather than within tenure review. This effort is seen as maximizing fairness both to the College and to the individual faculty member, enabling and facilitating the member’s mobility at the earliest possible point within the member’s career.

Tenure Review Process

The tenure review process normally occurs within the sixth year.  It begins in September and concludes in April, following the timetable outlined in the Faculty Handbook.  The timetable gets underway in September with a meeting scheduled by the Vice President with the tenure candidate and department chair or Chair of the Faculty Tenure Committee (FTC). From there the process moves forward as outlined in the above link.

Within the process described, the candidate meets with the Trustee Committee on Academic and Educational Policy at its February meeting, the Departmental Tenure Committee (DTC) vote is conveyed by the chair to the VPAA by February 15 and communicated (with vote tally) to the candidate in writing within 24-hours. The completed Departmental Evaluation File (DEF) is forwarded by the VPAA to the FTC by March 1. FTC review and recommendation is rendered by April 10, conveyed to the President, VPAA, candidate, and chair. After recommendations are presented to the April meeting of the Board of Trustees via its Academic and Educational Policy Committee, the candidate is informed of the Trustee decision in writing within 48 hours — normally conveyed by letter within a meeting with the VPAA on the afternoon of the Trustees’ decision.

Post-Tenure Review Process

All tenured faculty, while reviewed annually for merit salary increases,
receive their first formal post-tenure review in the 5th year following the awarding of tenure. Tenured faculty are then reviewed every seven years thereafter. The intent of these reviews is two-fold:

• helping the faculty member evaluate professional progress and pinpoint avenues of focus and effort that will further her/his growth and contribution professionally, departmentally, and more broadly to the College as a whole
• identifying ways the College and the department can facilitate this growth process (i.e., being responsive to the faculty member’s needs)

The process typically begins in August with a memo from the VPAA to the faculty member under review. Request is made for the submission of the following materials to the Vice President and the Department Chair (December 15 deadline):

• Brief statement of faculty activities for the preceding five years (first post-tenure review) or preceding seven years (subsequent reviews)
• Performance plan (developed in consultation with the chair) for teaching/professional activity over the next seven years
• Classroom visit reports by two reviewer faculty colleagues
• One-page summary of faculty member’s perspectives on past and projected performance in relation to stated goals and ways department and/or College can facilitate these goals
• Course evaluations from the past year (both semesters) (provided by VPAA)

The next phase of the process includes the following:

• Department chair reviews and discusses with the faculty member the above documents and submits a one-page performance evaluation to the faculty member and the Vice President
• If faculty member is a regular part of the Humanities Program, the current Humanities Program Chair, after consultation with the relevant program semester directors and staff, submits a one-page evaluation to the department chair and the Vice President
• In Humanities Program-instances, the above two reviews are coordinated by a full Professor and are agreed upon by the Humanities Program Chair, the Vice President, and, if possible, the department chair.

In the final phase, with the preceding materials as a discussion base, the Vice President meets with the faculty member. It is the faculty member’s option to also include the department chair.  On the basis of the documentation and meeting, the Vice President writes a one-page performance evaluation that the faculty member is asked to review and sign.  The documentation from each of these three phases is placed in the faculty member’s personnel file for reference within the next post-tenure review. The Vice President and department chair maintain confidentiality for all review-related documents.

In keeping with established general policy, the Vice President reads tenured-faculty course evaluations in the fourth year following this review.

Basic Evaluation Criteria

Criteria for Faculty Evaluation (qualities set forth as central to, and consistent with, the College’s mission) include:

• Excellence in teaching
• Imaginative teaching, demanding yet compassionate, respecting the unique gifts and worth of each individual, and commitment to fostering individual student growth
• Superior professional attainments in research, scholarship, and curriculum design
• Widely-respected scholarship, excitement for the learning quest, and capacity to communicate and share that excitement with students
• Ongoing commitment to professional growth and development
• Exemplification of the College’s high standard of intellectual and moral values
• Dedication to the highest ethical ideals and to a life of service. Faculty Handbook, 2.2.1, I. Preamble

Procedures for evaluation in relation to these criteria include:

• Classroom information, sought from the department chair, department/program colleagues, and students, with a goal of establishing “distinction in teaching, not simply competence.” Faculty Handbook, II, A
• Professional attainment judgments, depending heavily on the evaluative perspectives of the department chair, department colleagues, and colleagues in other departments/institutions who are knowledgeable about the professor’s field and, in some instances, may have worked in research partnership with the professor. Faculty Handbook, II, B
• Intellectual and moral values, evaluated in the areas of:
• (1) concern for students,
• (2) service to the institution, and
• (3) service to the wider community with information  sought from students, the department chair, and department/college colleagues. Faculty Handbook, II B