In accordance with University policy, the arts and humanities Chairs evaluate all faculty members (including instructors and adjuncts) formally and extensively on a yearly basis. The arts and humanities faculty find these evaluations helpful. However, they report a less than clear relationship of the annual evaluations to promotion and tenure decisions. (page 14; see rec 7 and 8). The College of Arts and Sciences policy and procedures for tenure and promotion rest on Department peer reviews and recommendations. A College Committee makes recommendations after reviewing the applications and the Dean generally supports the Committee recommendations, as does the Vice President for Academic Affairs.

In the division [Mathematics and Natural Sciences], the faculty evaluation process occurs annually for all faculty members. The Department Chairs have the responsibility to conduct and monitor the annual evaluations, which vary across the Departments, with some Departments using different approaches with different classifications of faculty. Recent, concerns have surfaced about the evaluation of research faculty appointed through the Office of Research but assigned to the Departments. Promotion and tenure policies and procedures and faculty development opportunities and procedures appear widely understood by faculty members (page 15; see rec 7 and 8).

The division [Social and Behavioral Sciences] Department Chairs identified a range of issues resulting from the positions lost in the budget reductions in 2000 and subsequently. Most believe that Department workload has remained and increased despite the reductions. The reduced number of faculty members remained responsible for an unreduced (and sometimes increased) Department workload. The Chairs, however, believe in good faith that the administration has provided assistance and positions when possible. However, these positive moves did not appear as integral elements of an overall institutional plan (page 17; see rec 1, 5, and 8).

Graduate programs in the social and behavioral sciences face many challenges as well as opportunities. The faculty members committed to graduate programs find they must take time away from undergraduate education and their own research to support graduate students. Allocations of teaching and research assistants (along with attendant Library resources) reflect historical patterns rather than a comparative analysis of Department needs. Such an analysis will mitigate the perceived inequities in the current allocation process. In addition to research and educational functions, the graduate programs provide needed assistance to Departments in teaching undergraduate courses. Without such support, some undergraduate programs will suffer. The faculty and the Chairs urge the development and implementation of a planning process based upon a vision and plan for the University and the College (page 18; see rec 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8).

The College [of Education], as the University, will feel the impact of the state’s financial and political climate and the issues regarding the certification and continuing education of teachers. Examples include the expanding numbers of students enrolled in the BYU-Idaho teacher education program, an increasing number of alternative certification options, and the expanded availability of options regarding continuing professional education. These and other conditions have caused a decline in enrollments at both the undergraduate and master’s levels and stimulated an expanded discussion about graduate education. Pressures to increase enrollments and programs will continue to demand more from the faculty and staff (page 22; see rec 1 and 8).

The College [of Education] has a dedicated faculty stretched thin across a wide range of course and program offerings. The appropriate policy statements and well-documented annual evaluation procedures present clearly the expectations for performance, also providing for faculty input and feedback on performance. A review of the vita indicates that faculty maintain the scholarly agenda appropriate for the institution’s expectations. The College’s substantial outreach program provides needed services and research to the districts in the region and the state, with many of the outreach activities housed in the Intermountain Center for Education Effectiveness. Faculty also have heavy involvement in outreach efforts through the ISU Centers and on-line and web-based courses (page 23; see rec 1 and 8).

Marginal staffing and high required credits in some of the undergraduate engineering programs have led to some issues with timely completion of student programs. The Dean and involved faculty members recognize the problem, but have not as yet identified solutions. The marginal staffing with respect to undergraduate programs raises questions about the College’s ability to deliver a graduate program that meets established goals. The undergraduate and graduate programs feature robust course offerings, however the reduced faculty FTE means more teaching and less opportunity for research and the requisite pursuit of extramural funding. Clearly, the same statements apply to other programs around the ISU campus, especially during difficult budgetary times in the state. The particular complexity for ISU and the College of Engineering revolves around the importance of the INL to eastern Idaho and the importance of the ISU College of Engineering to the INL (page 25; see rec 1 and 8).

Volunteer faculty in the Nursing, Physician Assistant, Counseling, and Family Practice Residency programs reported the consistent provision of appropriate learning objectives and counseling on their performance from student evaluations and clinical coordinators. However, none remembered formal evaluations of their performance. They find program support – especially when problems arise – readily available and appropriate, and they appreciate the in-service training that programs provide for preceptors and the visits to their sites by clinical faculty from ISU. All cited opportunities given to them to provide counsel to the program faculty with timely responses. The volunteer faculty found ISU students motivated and well-prepared for clinical rotations. One volunteer preceptor viewed ISU students fully comparable to students he had taught at universities such as Duke, Emory, and Utah (page 28; see rec 8).

Clinical rotations during the fourth professional year occur throughout Idaho, with Boise serving as a significant geographic locus. Until recently, the College [of Pharmacy] has also had institutional sites in Nevada, but the opening of a new pharmacy program in Nevada has made those sites unavailable. The College has placed high priority on finding additional training sites. In addition, the College will have to take steps to assure adequate clinical facilities, particularly in view of the plan to increase the class size to 70 as specified in the strategic plan. Students who met with an Evaluation Committee member complained about the delay in notification of practice sites for AY 2005-06, as they believed, because of the excessive workload of the one faculty member responsible for clinical assignments (page 29; see rec 1 and 8).

Faculty and administrators indicate great frustration at the lack of a published workload policy for the COT. Current workloads vary among programs and Departments, with credit hours and contact hours most commonly used as metrics. The lack of a workload policy has surfaced in the past, but no policy has emerged from these earlier discussions. The Committee believes a rational workload policy imperative and urges the implementation of one in the COT to monitor equitable faculty loads (page 30; see rec 8).

The faculty members who teach the programs at the Outreach Centers receive special compensation for this activity through the “Bi-Campus Incentive Matrix.” Discussions with faculty revealed that, in some cases, depending on the practices of different Colleges, the assignment becomes part of the normal teaching load for the faculty member with the compensation covering the cost of travel, lodging, etc. In other cases, the outreach teaching comes as an overload assignment with additional compensation provided for teaching the course on site or via video for the Center. This lack of consistency and continued treatment of the teaching assignments at the Centers as a voluntary “add-on” gives rise to a perception of temporariness among constituents in the communities and creates a credibility issue for the University. It also results in an uneven application of the incentive mechanism in place for compensating faculty (page 36; see rec 8).

The “Faculty-Staff Handbook” contains a faculty workload policy for academic tenure-track faculty based on a fifteen point scale, with workload expectations distributed across teaching, research, and service responsibilities. A “9-3-3” workload standard for academic tenure-track faculty seeks to allow time for each of these responsibilities. However, the Self-Study Report also articulated “12-0-3” and “15-0-0” workload standards for academic non-tenure-track faculty with instructional responsibilities. These latter workload standards do not appear in the “Handbook,” nor do the workload policies for the professional-technical non-tenure track faculty (College of Technology). The University does not have the full range of policies to insure workloads consistent with the qualifications and expectations of all faculty, regardless of type or category of appointment (page 51; see rec 8).

The primary issue in faculty evaluation pertains to the perceived inconsistency of requirements and application of requirements across Departments. Some Departments take faculty evaluation very seriously and have very detailed procedures, while others have less systematic approaches. All Departments evaluate the faculty members, but a perception exists among a considerable number of faculty members about the inconsistent and therefore unfair application of criteria and procedures. Other faculty members, however, see the system as reinforcing and assisting their career progress. Increased consistency and cohesiveness, or perhaps communication of appointment categories and expectations and criteria and procedures for evaluation, will improve the faculty evaluation program (page 53; see rec 8).

Other Departments and Colleges, particularly those without the motivation and guidance of outside accrediting agencies, appear more varied in their attention to evaluation. The Evaluation Committee found the process in the Psychology and Political Science Departments exemplary, while some other Arts and Sciences Departments lacked clarity or understanding. Humanities faculty, for example, reported finding the evaluations helpful but did not understand their relationship to promotion and tenure decisions. The absence of clear and consistent statements of policy, criteria, and procedures, and the lack of systematic oversight has left the process in limbo in some areas (page 53-54; see rec 7 and 8).