Four instructors given 'unsatisfactory' teaching assessments

Kristy Mangos Arizona Daily Wildcat Vice Provost for Academic Personnel Elizabeth Ervin speaks to an audience of about 25 people on the subject of post-tenure review. The meeting was billed as "a post-tenure de-briefing workshop."

The 1997-98 post-tenure review summary shows four tenured instructors out of 1,152 were given "unsatisfactory" teaching reviews, 12 have been found "unsatisfactory" in scholarship and eight received an "unsatisfactory" in service.

Elizabeth Ervin, vice provost for academic personnel and a member of the UA's annual faculty review coordinating team, said each UA department determines its own criteria, while university administration supervises to ensure quality.

"The departments decide what constitutes an unsatisfactory performance," Ervin said yesterday. "Every department's plan is approved by the college dean and the office of the provost."

The scholarship aspect deals with research, creativity and scholarly activity, she said.

"If someone's found deficient, it may mean that they have not published enough or their research has not produced anything of adequate value," she said.

Service, Ervin said, deals with involvement in committees and organizations inside and outside the University of Arizona.

But she said the teaching category is key in the review.

"Teaching affects students directly," she said. "Our attention would first focus on a problem in teaching."

The Arizona Board of Regents mandate that yearly student evaluations are part of the package, Ervin said.

The report also shows that 828 tenured faculty out of 1,152 received "better than satisfactory" ratings in teaching and more than 800 received the same review in the other two areas.

Faculty members compile materials, including student evaluations, and give the portfolio to their peers for the initial stage of the review, Ervin said. The department head then issues the overall evaluation, which can be appealed if an instructor feels the decision is unfair.

The idea of post-tenure review, a plan which checks faculty members every five years along with their annual review process, has been hotly debated among UA instructors.

But with the release of the statistics, one faculty member persisted in his verbal opposition.

Miklos Szilagyi, professor of electrical and computer engineering and UA Faculty Senate member, said Tuesday the numbers don't justify the process.

"If you compare the cost of the procedure, is it worth subjecting the entire faculty to this when you find four people," said Szilagyi, who is also the president of the UA's chapter of the American Association of University Professors.

Ervin said the time and energy cost is minimal, and the results are often positive.

"It's justified on the basis of accountability," she said Tuesday. "It's an opportunity for faculty and administrators together to look at accomplishments and areas of improvement."

Ervin made suggestions as to how instructors could make the necessary improvements during the 12-month probationary period, such as seeking help at the University Teaching Center or participating in a mentor program.

"Those people would need to find ways to improve their teaching," she said. "They could incorporate technology into their lectures to make them more interesting."

Ervin said the UA will take action if instructors show no improvement.

"If somebody is egregiously bad and refuses to get better, it probably is the right thing to ask them to leave," she said.

Szilagyi said tenure, which guarantees instructors job security unless substantial reasons for removal are discovered, makes allowances for dismissal.

"If you have tenure, you can still be removed for a cause," he said. "If students keep complaining, that will generate an investigation."

Szilagyi also criticized the Arizona Board of Regents, saying it has "little knowledge as to what the university is."

Regent Rudy Campbell said he sees a problem with faculty members who have Szilagyi's attitude.

"They're the people who don't want us to do anything," Campbell said Tuesday from his Phoenix office. "We want to take a look at you every 2-3 years and see how you're doing."

Tenure has had a peppered history in the board's meetings, as some regents wanted to eliminate the concept altogether, Campbell said.

"We told the faculty to come up with recommendations on how to address tenure because we were going to do something, one way or another," he said.

Campbell said he hadn't heard about the four "unsatisfactory" teaching reviews before Tuesday.

Ervin said she would not disclose the names and departments of faculty members who received unsatisfactory evaluations. Ervin added that some faculty members could have been found unsatisfactory in more than one of the three areas.

David J. Cieslak can be reached via e-mail at David.J.Cieslak@wildcat.arizona.edu.