Co

aS yl. INNOVATION ABSTRACTS ¥3:3'

CYC — Ce i : ( wy —- Published by the National Institute for Staff and Organizational Development With support from the W. K. Kellogg Foundation and Sid W. Richardson Foundation

POST-TENURE FACULTY EVALUATION IN COMMUNITY COLLEGES: ANOMALY OR REALITY?

Converging economic, cultural, political and demographic elements in the higher education environment have coalesced recently to create general interest in the topic of post-tenure faculty evaluation. A recent search of related literature uncovered philosophical and theoretical support for the concept of post-tenure evaluation, but very little descriptive data related to the process and practice of post-tenure evaluation was uncovered. For the community college, it was almost non-existent. A recently-completed study attempted to fill this research void by investigating, then describing the current status of post-tenure faculty evaluation as it specifically related to the community college.

Methodology

The research sample consisted of community college institutions belonging to the League for Innovation in the Community College. Nine colleges out of this eighteen member consortium agreed to participate. A survey questionnaire was constructed and administered to faculty and administrators in the participating institutions. This questionnaire sought to determine if formal post-tenure evaluation exists in community colleges; what the primary purpose for post-tenure evaluation is; what sources of input are utilized; what criteria are utilized; how effective the post-tenure evaluation is perceived to be; what differences of opinion exist between tenured and non-tenured faculty and administrators relative to the purpose and process of post-tenure evaluation; and what changes can be suggested to improve present faculty evaluation plans. [Of 1290 questionnaires mailed to tenured and non-tenured faculty and 421 mailed to administrators, a total of 856 were returned--50.1 percent. ] Findings

1. Over 77 percent of the respondents indicated that formal post-tenure evaluation did exist at their institu- tion, and approximately 94.8 percent agreed there should be post-tenure evaluation.

2. The majority of administrators and faculty (56.8 percent and 45.9 percent respectively) worked in institu- tions where the primary stated purpose for post-tenure evaluation was faculty development and_.improve- ment. Furthermore, when asked what should be the primary purpose, the results showed little change, with the majority of administrators and faculty (44.2 percent and 36.3 percent) indicating that the desired purpose should be for faculty development and improvement.

3. Interestingly, both administrators (59.1 percent) and faculty (49.6 percent) reported that the primary stated purpose, as well as their own preferred purpose for pre-tenure evaluation, was to provide information for personnel-decisions. Thus, a difference in purposes for pre- and post-tenure evaluation was reported.

4. The criteria most frequently used in the post-tenure evaluation process as cited by both administrators and faculty were: classroom effectiveness (66.5 percent), contributions to department/division (51.0 percent), attendance and reliability (49.9 percent), campus committee work (49.5 percent), course or curriculum development (44.2 percent) and innovation in teaching methods (42.3 percent). Of these criteria, classroom effectiveness unanimously received the most emphasis in each institution's plan. When asked, “Which cri- teria in an ‘ideal’ post-tenure evaluation process were preferred as the most influential?” the respondents chose the same top five criteria that they indicated were presently being utilized. However, the majority of respondents indicated that changes were needed in the evaluation criteria to better accommodate individual

_ faculty interests and department/division priorities.

5. There was general disagreement that the criteria used to evaluate tenured faculty should differ from the cri- teria used to evaluate non-tenured faculty.

6. Both faculty and administrators strongly agreed that there should be multiple sources of input to post- tenure evaluation including administrators, peers, students, and self. The data also indicated that the respondents worked in institutions that presently provide for multiple participants in the process with the department/division chairperson almost universally rated as the key participant.

7. A majority of respondents (50.2 percent) indicated that the post-tenure evaluation is shared with the evaluated faculty member but that the faculty member is then left to his/her own devices to correct any

Program in Community College Education, The University of Texas at Austin, EDB 348, Austin, Texas 78712