Arguably the most important thing we do as faculty members is the selection of our life-long colleagues through the hiring, evaluation and the tenure and promotion process. In recent years approximately 25% of promotion and tenure candidates were not recommended for approval at either the department, college, university or presidential level. Assuming that we hire new faculty who have the potential to be promoted and tenured, the relatively high number of non-approvals at all levels strongly indicates that we are not conducting appropriate annual evaluations. This situation is unacceptable, and we must address it. Annual evaluations should be helpful to everyone involved, particularly to our new colleagues. They should serve to assist those who need help and to thank those who have performed well. In most cases, problems can be corrected given guidance and time, but the situation almost never improves if we ignore it.

My intention here is to comment, in general terms, on the reasons why candidates for tenure were not successful and why it is clear to me that faculty committees and chairs are not giving annual evaluations the time and attention they deserve. Please note that there is nothing here or elsewhere that changes our current promotion and tenure criteria. The University Promotion and Tenure Criteria adopted by the Faculty (see Section 10.4.2 of the Faculty Handbook at http://dof.fsu.edu/facultyhandbook/) call for distinguished or outstanding performance in teaching and service; and for scholarly and creative activity, they seek evidence of the faculty member's national standing as a scholar or creative artist in a field.

My comments speak to the kind of evidence we should expect in the promotion and tenure file demonstrating that these criteria have been met by the candidate.

Teaching – Student Evaluations

Student evaluations of teaching are an important part of the overall assessment of a candidate for promotion and tenure. Table I is a summary of student evaluations for the Spring 2000 semester. Let me strongly emphasize that the data in Table I do not contain any magic numbers. The student-evaluation responses for teaching (SUSSAI) are the campus-wide averages and all they give us are some general indications of what we might expect to see when reviewing our colleagues. (I use SUSSAI here rather than SIRS because the SUSSAI are required in all courses, whereas not everyone uses SIRS.) Certainly, results differ by course level and type, but the differences are not great.

TABLE I

A few comments on the overall data in Table I may be instructive. First, it is clear that the overwhelming majority of our colleagues are considered by students to be very good teachers and committed to the success of each student. Second, our students feel that they have the respect and concern of their faculty. Third, in written comments, not shown here, our students indicate that their faculty care about them and offer help in their courses.

We require peer evaluations of teaching in addition to SUSSAI (and sometimes SIRS) for each course taught. I have read promotion and tenure folders in which the peer evaluations were filled with superlatives. In fact, I have never seen a peer evaluation that was even slightly negative. Yet, the same folder will contain student responses indicating real problems in classroom communication. For example, in response to the question on "effective teaching," I have seen an individual ranked 0% excellent, 5% very good, 10% good, 30% fair, and 55% poor by students in the same folder with evaluations provided by both the peer evaluator and the department chair that called the person “one of the best teachers in the department.” Either no one read the evaluative material provided by the students, or the teaching quality in that department is deplorable.

Tenure folders have been submitted that showed weak to poor student evaluations of teaching year after year, and year after year the chair gave a satisfactory evaluation in teaching. Thorough annual evaluations should have identified this problem. An improvement plan should have been developed to help this person become a better teacher.

What I find unpardonable is failure by the new faculty member or by the department to attempt to improve. Poor teaching can be corrected. I am living proof that this is so. Some of you have heard me describe the disaster that was my first attempt at teaching. I had never served as a teaching assistant and had not even thought much about it, somehow assuming that good teaching would occur naturally. Well, it didn't. I spoke too fast, did not understand the difference between a course calendar and a course syllabus, spoke into the blackboard, and never allowed time for questions—and those were the better areas.

I mentioned my concern about teaching to a colleague who immediately volunteered to sit in on the course and give me some advice. She suggested that I have a few of the lectures videotaped so that I could watch myself in action. I suspect she did so because she couldn't bring herself to describe the horror she witnessed. My teaching improved considerably after focusing on the elements of teaching and some hard work. The improvement didn't just happen—it required a concentrated effort on my part—but the experience convinced me that it is possible to improve our teaching if we are committed to doing so. We now have a dedicated program for instructional development that will assist any faculty member who wishes to improve or enhance their teaching skills. Any faculty member or department may contact Dr. Walt Wager at 644-4452 for instructional assistance.

Table II (appended) is the format in which I would like to see each candidate display the information from the SUSSAI, as it provides an overview on a single sheet and can give the candidate and the chair a sense that greater attention to teaching may be required. In the past I have made such tables for each folder I have read, and it is gratifying when I see a candidate's teaching improve over time.

Other folders contain material showing that the candidate, and presumably the chair, did not understand the difference between a course calendar and a course syllabus. The course calendar is just that—a calendar. The course syllabus, in contrast, should be a document that captures the scope of the discipline and identifies the contribution of the course to that discipline. The best of the ones I've read make me want to take the course myself.

 In addition, a good syllabus should contain those items required by our Faculty Senate:

1. A rationale for the course indicating where it fits into the overall intellectual area.
2. Course objectives: what the student should gain from the course. I think it is helpful to include objectives for each of the class meetings or topics.
3. A clear explanation of evaluation, including a clear statement on the assessment process and measurements. The Faculty Senate suggests something quite explicit, such as: mid-term 20%, class participation 15%, term paper 10%, and final exam 55%.
4. Course content and outline.
5. Student responsibilities in the course.
6. Resources, web-based and other types of help.
7. A statement about the Florida State University Honor Code. The Faculty Senate suggests: “Students are expected to uphold the Academic Honor Code published in The Florida State University Bulletin and the Student Handbook. The Academic Honor System of The Florida State University is based on the premise that each student has the responsibility (1) to uphold the highest standards of academic integrity in the student's own work, (2) to refuse to tolerate violations of academic integrity in the university community, and (3) to foster a high sense of integrity and social responsibility on the part of the university community.”
8. Class attendance. I strongly urge that you require attendance at all classes as well as participation in class. It is worth noting that there are data supporting the idea that class attendance improves learning and students who attend class are far less likely to drop out of college. I have heard students say, “I am paying tuition so I should decide if I attend class.” Remember that students only pay about 20% of the cost of their education and as taxpayers we are paying the other 80%. It is reasonable, therefore, to expect attendance.
9. Your policy on missed material or missed exams. Remember that you cannot simply deny excused absences, but rather you must have a clear policy. I would also suggest that you include a statement of what constitutes an excused absence. Remember that we do not want to assume responsibility for the deaths of thousands of grandmothers during finals week. (See a discussion of the death of grandmothers at http://biology.ecsu.ctstateu.edu/People/ConnRev.)
10. A written ADA policy is required on all course syllabi. Suggested language from the Faculty Senate includes: “Students with disabilities needing academic accommodation should; (1) register with and provide documentation to the Student Disability Resource Center; (2) bring a letter to the instructor indicating the need for accommodation and what type. This should be done during the first week of class.”

To recap: The two major reasons for denial of promotion and tenure that I see in the teaching portion of a promotion and tenure binder are poor student evaluations and poorly organized courses as demonstrated by the absence of a real course syllabus.

Research

Perhaps it is in research that the absence of a rigorous evaluation does the greatest injustice to our younger practicing colleagues. Most fields have access to plenty of data on research expectations. In the accounting field, for example, a published paper summarizes the quality and quantity of publications for newly promoted associate professors. The National Research Council report on doctoral programs provides data on faculty publishing and citations in more than 40 disciplines. Presumably each of us can also look in our own departments for what might be reasonable research or creative expectations.

Thus, it is simply inexplicable to find folders with three-year periods without obvious research or creative activities and to see a satisfactory evaluation for each of the years or, perhaps even worse, three straight years of official concern. In the latter case, one would expect either an improvement or an unsatisfactory.

Similarly, in most of the sciences the candidate is expected to have an active grant. Submission of proposals is not enough. At a Research I institution like this one, a substantial competitive grant should have been awarded within the first few years. The university provides the salary associated with a research assignment, as well as other basic needs, but the high costs of most sciences require outside support. Appropriate teaching assignments and a substantial research assignment allow for the time necessary to seek and obtain funding.

Another expectation that we have for new faculty members is establishment of an independent line of scholarship at this university. We are all familiar with the person who excelled in graduate school under the direction of a major professor or in a large laboratory environment yet flounders when asked to function independently. Self-reliance is a critical factor in our evaluation, and the candidate must clearly demonstrate independent lines of scholarship or creativity.

Also very important is that faculty in those fields in which a book, rather than journal articles, is the norm for scholarly publishing agree on the standards. I think we would all agree that “submitted” alone does not count for anything. Do “accepted,” “page proofs,” and “published but not yet reviewed” all mean the same thing? I believe that the standard should be “published” for the following reasons. If the book is based on the dissertation, then by the normal time for tenure consideration, in the sixth year, the candidate has had three full years to get the book manuscript ready to be submitted, one year to have it reviewed, and one year for publication. This schedule does not seem unreasonable to me, but I am open to discussion on this point.

Failure to conduct meaningful annual evaluations can have the unfortunate result that the candidate is turned down at some level and enters the job market at the six-year mark. When this happens, opportunities for academic positions are severely reduced. It would be far better for all concerned to counsel the candidate to leave the university at the end of the second or third year, in better time to find a more suitable position. A colleague who is not a good fit at this university may well succeed admirably somewhere else, but we limit the possibilities for an alternative career by allowing the candidate to hang on through the sixth year and then denying tenure.

As faculty members we have a responsibility to our young colleagues to provide them with the support and counsel that will lead them to successful careers as faculty members here. It is irresponsible to place administrative burdens on untenured colleagues or to allow them to take on such burdens for themselves without an evaluation process that lets them know precisely what they must do to earn tenure.

Ultimately, the responsibility for success or failure rests with the candidates themselves. Evaluations are important, but our colleagues are highly educated adults, and it is their responsibility to inform themselves of the standards for success and to achieve those standards.

For more than ten years I have maintained a policy that a unit will not be penalized if it is necessary not to renew a faculty member's contract. The unit retains the line and the rate and may recruit on the position immediately upon the termination of the incumbent. Furthermore, never, during the last twenty years, have I encountered at any level a “use it or lose it” policy with regard to faculty searches or promotion and tenure decisions. There is no excuse for ever lowering our standards to avoid losing a position. In fact, if we do not consistently bring in new faculty who are better than the unit average, quality will erode.

Despite these clear policies and despite numerous discussions at Council of Deans meetings, as well as my own comments at the semi-annual meetings of deans, department chairs, and directors, and in other venues, departments continue to send forward candidates who do not meet university standards. Therefore, if a department sends a candidate forward for promotion or tenure with a positive vote and that candidate is turned down for any reason at a higher level, the position and the rate will revert to the Provost's reserve at the time the position is vacated. Because I have been saying this for the past five years, this policy is retroactive to Fall 2000.