Faculty Assessment Methods

Treating Catholic School Teachers as Professionals—II In my previous post, I discussed what my mentor, Dr. Tom Doyle, believed to be the proper stance of the principal in post year evaluations of faculty. Summarizing, he saw the role of principal to be a “mirror-maker,” providing as many means as possible so that teachers could self-assess their strengths and weaknesses most accurately. True professionals, he believed, critique themselves, and don’t wait like sheep to be judged by their bosses. That’s the reason Doyle believed in student course assessments. They served as one of those mirrors, giving the teacher a window into how students perceived their course. He used other “mirrors” also. Every report card run, he ran grade distribution summaries by course and teacher. If something looked out of whack, such as too high a proportion of A’s, he would circle it in red, and give the grade summaries back to teachers without comment, except for the general comment he made to all faculty: “Teachers are responsible for the grades they give as the professionals. I will circle percentages that appear to be statistical anomalies, but the teacher must decide if the unique attributes of that group of students merit the anomaly.” Those little red circles were the source of a great deal of faculty introspection! For the same reason, Doyle was a great believer in providing testing data to teachers. Though he disliked some of the curricular decisions of the College Board in the A.P. Program ( his doctorate was in Physics and he taught A.P. Physics and A.P. Calculus the entirety of his high school career), he loved the accountability of the final A.P. test, where a teachers’ students were judged by a jury of the teachers’ peers. Similarly, he would track A.C.T. data, measuring freshman to senior growth per subtest, breaking that further into quadrants of high, middle high, middle low and low scores (helpful in distinguishing the performance of the honors program from the regular program), and share those summaries with departments. In addition to “mirror-making,” Doyle promoted the sense of professionalism in faculty by trusting in their collective wisdom. Teachers were encouraged to make any recommendation they believed would make the school better for next year. They had to write it out and put their name to it. At the post-year faculty meetings, all those recommendations were introduced and debated, and the last thing we did before leaving for the summer was vote on them. If there was near consensus, that became the way we did things for the following year. If there was only a simple majority, he’d make the final call. Debates got heated! —fueled by the passions (and no doubt, the end of year exhaustion) of a group of teachers who felt as if they were truly stakeholders in shaping the direction of the school. As a young teacher, it was exciting! And none of us ever felt those post year faculty meetings were a waste of time!

As I continue to educate myself on the challenges facing innovators seeking to commercialize research, I occasionally come across a gem that reenergizes my desire to press on despite the feeling of pushing a rock up a hill. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵 1 𝘰𝘧 3 𝘴𝘶𝘮𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘻𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘺 𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘊𝘢𝘯𝘐𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘭𝘦, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘬 [1] 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴. I found one such gem in the form of the Promotion & Tenure - Innovation & Entrepreneurship (PTIE) [2] initiative being spearheaded by Rich G. Carter PTIE is a grassroots movement promoting innovation and entrepreneurship in American universities, based on the idea that embracing the cultural change required to drive innovation and entrepreneurship in university settings revolves around properly incentivizing faculty researchers. They achieve this through rigorous research into faculty motivations, ultimately recommending expanding the metrics that are included in faculty performance and tenure reviews to include innovation, entrepreneurship, and community impact beyond the lab. Their approach has been wildly successful, growing from its roots in OSU to include more than 70 American universities. More importantly, PTIE has published a detailed playbook on how this change was achieved. You can find some suggested introductory literature in the comments [3,4,5]. In this article, I give an overview of the playbook, and comment on how it could be adapted to the Canadian context. PTIE bases their approach on building incentives that correlate to I&E into P&T review metrics for professors at participating universities. The idea is simple and powerful. While traditional metrics of academic performance include things like publications, teaching, and service, PTIE recommends expanding the ways in which faculty are recognized for their effort when being considered for promotion and tenure. The task of driving innovation is generational in scope. Because of this, it requires staying power that outlasts any individual involved. The only way to do this is to embed a culture of impact into the fabric of the institution. Culture trumps strategy every time, and changing culture is hard, requiring buy-in from every level. PTIE’s approach to driving cultural change revolves around building bottom-up support at the level of faculty and top-down support from the university administration. The task becomes one of aligning the PTIE metrics with the mission, vision, and values of the university, to be able to frame the necessary change in terms of what the administration is already trying to achieve (and thereby drive the top-down push for culture change), while working with faculty to build the required support from the bottom up. PTIE provides numerous tools for this task, including surveys to assess support at the faculty level and examples of language used to align culture change efforts with existing missions, vision, and values.

One assessment method won’t cut it... Multi-methods unlock hidden potential. Relying on a single method misses the full picture: → It overlooks important skills and abilities. → It may lead to biased or incomplete evaluations. → It fails to identify specific areas for improvement. A multi-method approach paints a full picture: 1. Performance Reviews Deliver structured feedback to highlight growth areas. Focus on actionable steps to improve performance.     2. Surveys & Interviews Gain honest insights directly from key stakeholders. Uncover both strengths and hidden challenges.     3. Skills Gap Analysis Identify critical priorities for targeted development. Design plans to close gaps and build key skills.     4. Self-Assessments Encourage leaders to reflect on their unique strengths. Build self-awareness to fuel ongoing growth.     5. Team Discussions Foster collaboration to unlock team potential. Reveal hidden strengths within group dynamics. Mix at least three methods for real impact: ☑ Schedule regular feedback check-ins. ☑ Build impact skills like communication. ☑ Use tech for surveys and real-time data. Smart assessments drive future-ready leaders. Follow Jonathan Raynor. Reshare to help others.

I’ve worked under academic leaders who seemed more focused on tracking faculty office hours than on faculty development. And that experience showed me that the things we choose to measure don’t just track progress—they shape behavior. Metrics are powerful, but they’re not neutral. They need to reflect your program’s mission and values —not just what’s easy to count. And, if you’re not careful, you can end up incentivizing behaviors that work against long-term goals. Here are a few examples: 🔹 Service Requirements: Tracking departmental service without considering the impact or quality of that service can lead to "box-ticking" - where faculty join committees to fulfill a quota, without real engagement or contribution. 🔹 Student Course Evaluations: Tying student evaluations too closely to performance assessments can pressure faculty to focus on student satisfaction (e.g., giving higher grades or less rigorous assignments) rather than academic rigor and long-term student growth. 🔹 Number of Publications: A heavy emphasis on quantity of publications can lead faculty to prioritize publishing frequently over producing high-quality, impactful research. (a.k.a. "salami slicing," where one study is divided into multiple smaller publications to inflate numbers). 🔹 Course Enrollment: Focusing too much on enrollment may encourage faculty to offer more popular, easier courses rather than challenging or niche courses crucial for a well-rounded education. 👉 One thing that can help? Regularly step back and ask: What are we really measuring? Is it aligned with what we care about? What About You?  Have you ever encountered a metric that pushed your faculty or staff in the wrong direction? How did you handle it? ------------------------------ ♻️ Repost this to help other academic leaders.  💬 Follow for posts about higher education, leadership, & the arts. #HigherEdLeadership #StrategicThinking #MetricsThatMatter #FacultyDevelopment #LeadershipJourney #HigherEducation #InstitutionalChange

How a Critical Incident Transformed the Education Industry's Approach to Performance Management! Let me tell you a story- In 2015, the University of California, Berkeley, was found to have a flawed performance management system for its faculty. The system was based on a single annual performance review, often conducted by the faculty member's department chair. The reviews were often subjective and did not provide clear feedback on how the faculty member could improve their performance. It had some negative consequences: ❌ It led to a decline in morale among faculty members.  ❌ It made it difficult to identify and reward high-performing faculty members.  ❌ It made it difficult to address areas lacking faculty performance. I share this because institutions unknowingly overlook the importance of performance management. If you don't have a performance management system in place, you're going to have a crisis. So how do you implement a successful performance management system? 👉 Performance Metrics and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs): KPIs must align with the institution's strategic objectives & should be specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART). Regularly track and assess progress against these indicators. 👉 Regular Performance Reviews: Conduct formal performance reviews regularly, such as annually or biannually. These reviews should be comprehensive and objective and provide a holistic view of an individual's performance, strengths, areas for improvement, and growth opportunities. 👉 Continuous Improvement: Regularly evaluate the effectiveness of the performance management system and make necessary adjustments based on feedback and outcomes. We can empower our educators and staff members to reach their full potential, benefiting our students and the broader community. Let us embrace this opportunity to create an environment where educational excellence flourishes. What do you think? #teachingjobs #education #hiring