As part of our ongoing effort to provide information to faculty about the Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion (RTP) process, we address the topic of student comments.

One issue periodically raised is the proper use and role of student comments in the RTP process. Based on the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), there are two sources of student input incorporated into the RTP process. Anonymous student evaluations are collected at the end of a semester in the classroom; these are quantitative in nature (e.g., scantron forms), or a combination of quantitative and qualitative (with space provided on the quantitative form for student comments) (CBA 15.16a). Second, students may be provided an opportunity to consult with the department peer review committee (CBA 15.15). This is normally done when the Initiating Unit Personnel Committee (IUPC) invites student participation at the time a candidate is eligible for an RTP decision; however, students may provide evaluations at any time to be included in a faculty member's Personnel Action File (PAF). Any student communications or evaluations provided outside of the regular course evaluation process must be identified by name to be included in a PAF (CBA 15.16b). These two sources of material on student input are used by the candidate and IUPCs in preparing an RTP candidate's Working Personnel Action File (WPAF) (Appendix J, Section V.E.2.g; and Appendix J, Section VI.A.2).

A concern can arise when faculty members, department chairs, or administrators independently insert additional information on student comments about a candidate's teaching into their evaluative letter. Addition of such undocumented information on student comments is viewed as hearsay information going beyond the primary source. In a similar fashion, past practice also has been to identify as hearsay, evidence given by one student reporting the experience of another. Thus, it is deemed appropriate to draw on student information properly documented in the WPAF as part of the letters written by evaluators; however, it is not considered appropriate to add undocumented student comments into a candidate's WPAF.

Related to this issue is the restriction that no genuinely new information of any kind is to be added to a WPAF after a file closes without permission from the UFPC. For example, unless an administrator is commenting on student evaluations or student letters that are included in the file, no additional information about student evaluation of the instructor may be introduced through a faculty or administrator's letter. Furthermore, permission from the UFPC for inclusion of new material is limited to information not available at the time a file was closed. In those cases where permission is granted, any such information added must go back to lower level evaluating committees for their review, evaluation and comment (Appendix J, Section VI.B.1.b).

We wish you the very best for this academic year, and welcome your contacting us if we can provide further information or assistance.

Cordially,

Susan Bennett
Rick Botzler, Chair
Sharon Chadwick
Steve Martin
William Wood