| Bienniel Salary Reviews- usually due in January
Tenured associate and full professors and adjunct faculty (who according to the Faculty Handbook are reviewed every two years) will submit salary reviews every two years.
Other tenure-track faculty and lecturers will continue to submit them annually.
Half the merit pool will be distributed each year, and the merit raises will apply for the two year period.
Year 1: Departments and Programs A-F
Art, Anthropology, Biology, Chemistry, Classics, Comparative Literature, Drama and Dance, Economics & Business, Education, English, Environmental Science, Feminist and Gender Studies
Year 2: Departments and Programs G-Z:
Geology, GREAL, History, Mathematics, Music, Philosophy, Physics, Political Science, Psychology, Religion, Romance Languages, Sociology, Southwest Studies, Sports Science
Year 1: 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An Overview of the Process:
Late in the fall semester, the Dean’s Office sends to Chairs an overview letter for evaluations and for each faculty member a salary form, which requests a self-evaluation in four areas: teaching; scholarly activities; department and college service and academic advising; and activities outside the College. The Chair collects the written self-reports from department faculty. The Chair may respond to individual department members’ self-evaluations in a variety of ways. The significance of the Chair’s response lies in regular, adequate, candid feedback (particularly to untenured, tenure-track faculty) to let faculty members know how they are doing. The Chair sends the self-reports and his/her comments to the Dean and to the appropriate Divisional Executive Committee. The content of the materials the Chair sends to the Dean and the divisional Executive Committee also varies slightly across departments. Some chairs comment on each faculty member’s self-evaluation as a separate attachment to each self-report; some chairs create a general letter that provides an overview of each member of the department’s contributions and an assessment of the department as a whole. Candid assessments of faculty efforts in improving teaching and productivity as a scholar in the preceding year are essential information for considering faculty for salary increases and for merit raises. Chairs should recommend a standard merit increase (cost-of-living and normal progression through the ranks), an exceptional-merit increase, or a below-average raise (usually some reduction of progression). Some faculty do not turn in self-reports; chairs handle this lack of information in various ways. Some attempt an assessment anyway, some simply note the absence of the self-report but still rank or categorize.
The divisional executive committees review these materials for the departments in their division and make a recommendation to the Dean (which is also sent back to each department Chair). It is most helpful when the division evaluates and ranks all members of the division. The Dean reviews all of the materials as a part of the annual salary review process. Click these links for samples of standard faculty evaluation forms and memos sent to chairs in the fall semester.
From the Faculty Handbook Section C.Vii.A.1.a
Merit increases for individual faculty members are determined by the President of the College in consultation with the Dean. Faculty members are evaluated by their department chairs and the Dean for their performance in the preceding calendar year according to criteria such as the following:
1) Is the faculty member a good teacher? What evidence can be presented to show this?
2) Is the faculty member a good scholar? What evidence can be presented to show this?
3) What contributions has the faculty member made to the campus community?
4) Is the faculty member a good academic advisor? What evidence can be presented to show this?
5) What contributions has the faculty member made to a larger community (for example, civic and/or professional organizations)?
6) How does the faculty member contribute to the long-range goals of the department?
7) To what extent could the educational direction of the College be entrusted to this faculty member?
____________________________________________________________________
C O L O R A D O C O L L E G E
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Department Chairs, Program Directors and Division Executive Committees
FROM: Susan A. Ashley, Professor of History, Dean of the College/Dean of the Faculty
DATE: November 28, 2007
RE: Salary Information forms
Here are your department's salary information forms and chair's recommendation forms for this year. At the April 10, 2006 meeting, the chairs and program directors decided to adopt biennial salary reviews for tenured faculty members. Departments A – F reviewed tenured faculty the first year, 2006-07, and G – Z the second year, 2007-08. All non-tenured tenure-track faculty, adjuncts and lecturers are reviewed annually. The information forms are to be completed by each faculty member and submitted to chairs by December 19, 2007 or earlier if you so prescribe. (I leave it to you to explain the information forms to your departmental colleagues). As before, you are asked to provide an evaluation and recommendation for each department member based on the stated criteria in the Faculty Handbook (C-VII-A-1-a). Comparative evaluations of department members help in assigning merit pay. I refer you to the Faculty Handbook, section B.II.G. (page B-8), for an explanation of faculty expectations concerning course evaluations.
The chairs’ and directors’ evaluations and recommendations, together with the individual information forms (unless the individual requests otherwise), should be sent to me with copies to your divisional executive committee by the first Friday of block 5 (January 25, 2008). Supporting material submitted by a faculty member, such as reprints, should be forwarded to me, not the divisional committee, unless requested by the committee. We also would appreciate a current copy of each individual faculty member’s C.V.
The executive committees will send recommendations and comments to me, with copies to department chairs, by the third Monday of block 5 (February 4, 2008).
Jeff and I will review all information, evaluations, and recommendations submitted then assign merit (progression and extraordinary merit) raises according to these materials, handbook criteria and the faculty salary policy. I will forward these recommendations to the President. Again, comparative assessments within departments and divisions provide key information.
Department chairs and program directors will receive copies of individual salary letters next spring.
Enclosures: Salary Information Form
Salary Recommendation Form
“Faculty Salaries at Colorado College”
Please make as many copies of these forms as you need.
____________________________________________________________________
FACULTY SALARY RECOMMENDATION
FROM DEPARTMENT CHAIRS & PROGRAM DIRECTORS
TO DEAN FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 2007
DUE TO THE DEAN AND DIVISIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
BY JAN. 25, 2008
Professor__________________________________Department_____________________
Chair’s signature____________________________________Date_________________
Please comment on the faculty member's activities in the areas stated in the faculty handbook. Specifically, please include a succinct evaluation of the following: teaching, scholarly activities, department and college service and academic advising, activities outside the college and any general comments.
Your frank evaluation is essential to the salary review process. Divisional committees use chair evaluations to assess performance in the context of the division, and the Deans’ Office depends on assessments of both chairs and divisional committees in formulating its recommendations to the President on salaries. The faculty decision in 2005-06 to increase the funds available for extraordinary merit awards gives greater weight to these reviews.
Chairs are responsible for evaluating the members of their department or program and should be able to make appropriate comparisons among their faculty. The most helpful input from Chairs includes both ranking the faculty within the department or program and placing these faculty members within the broad categories of:
1) Extraordinary merit–this person had a very unusual and highly productive year.
2) Merit and progression through the rank–based on performance in the last year, this person meets expectations and deserves the full progression through the ranks award
3) Less-than-satisfactory–in the year covered by the review, this person did not meet standard expectations.
It is especially useful when Chairs are specific about what informs their judgment in each case.
Divisional Executive Committees are responsible for making comparisons among the faculty across the entire division. Simple endorsements of the Chairs’ recommendations are not as useful as an appraisal of all faculty in the context of the division.
__________________________________________________________________
FACULTY INFORMATION FORM
FOR DEPARTMENT CHAIRS& PROGRAM DIRECTORS
Calendar Year 2007
Please return to your department chair or program director by Dec. 19, 2007 unless an earlier date is requested.
Professor (print) ____________________________________________
Signature ____________________________________________
This questionnaire is designed to assist your chair in preparing the salary recommendations for the department. Please include this page with your signature when you submit the information to your chair.
The College values diverse approaches to teaching, scholarship and service. For specific performance criteria, see section C-VII-A-1-a of the Faculty Handbook. Your printed reply should include comments on your:
Ø Teaching: a review of activities which could include course redesign, development of new courses, special or unusual activities to enhance learning, evidence of student learning, grading and evaluation strategies, participation in the FYE, ways you’ve taken advantage of the Block Plan’s possibilities, efforts to enhance the classroom atmosphere for diverse groups of students, and other aspects of your teaching that you consider important.
ØStrategies to provide a rigorous intellectual experience for students.
Ø Scholarly activities (including publications, creative projects and study, ongoing projects, participation in scholarly groups, research grant proposals).
Ø Department and College service (departmental and college committees, special projects, academic advising (number of advisees, time devoted to advising, advising style), and efforts to achieve the College’s commitments to making the College more congenial and welcoming to diverse groups of people.
Ø Activities outside the College (professional organizations, consulting, civic activities).
Ø Ways you’ve used the reduced teaching load under the 6 block year to enhance teaching and scholarship.
Ø General comments you may wish to add about your work in this review cycle.
| 
