B. The Second-Year Review
- Amended by Faculty approval, May 12, 2010.
- Amended by Faculty approval, December 9, 2009.
- Amended May 13, 2009.
- Amended 28 June 2003 by action of the Dean of the Faculty and the President to establish the practice of a teaching evaluation committee.
- Amended by Faculty action, February 16, 2011
Overview: A tenure-track member of the Faculty undergoes a second-year review in the spring semester of the second year of the first six years of his or her appointment. As both formative and summative, this review provides feedback on progress towards a successful tenure review and identifies areas that require attention prior to a tenure review.
The Process: The second-year review is conducted very early in the spring semester (January) by the tenure-track faculty member’s department Chair. The candidate prepares an updated portfolio for this review. The department Chair reviews materials on teaching, scholarship and service included in the candidate’s portfolio. The department Chair (or, with the approval of the Dean of the Faculty, a designated senior colleague in the department) will also observe three of the candidate’s classes in the fall semester prior to the review. Additionally, the department Chair will review the candidate’s college-wide student evaluations and grade distributions for all classes taught during the review period.
The department Chair will also receive input from at least two senior members of the department. Input from these senior departmental members will be informed by observations from class visits during the previous two semesters (at least one class session during the first year and one class session in the fall semester of the second year) and a review of the candidate’s portfolio. These senior members of the department, who will be identified in the fall of the candidate’s first year of service with the College, will meet as a group with the department Chair to discuss their observations and findings.
The department Chair then makes a determination regarding the candidate’s progress in each category of evaluation using the description of performance described in the previous section (Section VIII). The department Chair then meets with the candidate to discuss the Chair’s assessment as well as the candidate’s plans for future work. Prior to this meeting the department Chair will provide the candidate with a written copy of this assessment.
The department Chair’s written assessment of the candidate’s progress in each category of evaluation (including the reasons for the assessments) and the candidate’s portfolio are sent to the Dean of the Faculty, usually late in January. The Dean of the Faculty will have an initial meeting with the department Chair to discuss the Chair’s assessment and the Dean’s assessment of the candidate’s progress. This is followed by a meeting with the Dean of the Faculty, the department Chair, and the candidate to discuss his or her progress. The Dean of the Faculty will provide a written summary of the outcome of the review focusing on the candidate’s progress in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service with recommendations for improvement when necessary. If progress is deemed to be insufficient, the Dean of the Faculty will communicate this in the letter as well. This letter will become part of the official record examined during the fourth-year review. After the meeting with the Dean, the department Chair will have a follow-up meeting with the candidate to discuss the feedback from the review process and to assist the candidate in identifying strategies to foster an ongoing positive trajectory in each category of evaluation.
In the case of departments with fewer than three senior faculty members, an ad hoc department for a tenure-track faculty member will be constituted in the first year. One or two ad hoc department members will be designated by the Dean of Academic Affairs in consultation with the senior members of the candidate’s department and the candidate. Ad hoc department members will be expected to engage in regular classroom visitations, as well as have a conversation with the candidate concerning pedagogical and professional matters. The Ad hoc department will stay in place through the tenure review, even if the department grows to more than three senior members between the candidate’s first and sixth year. This will help to guarantee continuity of observation and feedback throughout the probationary period.