A Report on the Continued Use of SRIs for tenure and promotion decisions by the UVU Administration

A Report on the Continued Use of SRIs for tenure and promotion decisions by the UVU Administration

 

20 March 2022

 

First, a case from last year for important context.

 

Spring 2021, Denial of Tenure

 

In the course of the appeal, two Faculty Senate Committees voted unanimously that the administrators had erred in their denial of tenure, a denial based solely on SRI scores and student comments. The decision was overturned, and tenure was bestowed. 

 

The reevaluation committee made lengthy comments based on their analysis, including the following:

 

·      The committee questioned the reliability of SRI scores, a general problem exacerbated when SRIs are used without context. 

·      Although Academic Affairs repeatedly denies that there is a cut off score for SRIs, the committee pointed out that in this case SRI scores judged as low were a key factor in evaluating teaching effectiveness.

·      The committee noted that the courses in question were quite rigorous. Numerous studies show, they said, that rigorous courses receive lower SRI courses than less rigorous courses. Rigorous courses fulfill UVU’s mission to deliver rigorous and meaningful learning opportunities.

·       The committee found no reason that the annual reviews, mid-term reviews, RTP committee recommendations, the department chair’s recommendation, and the Dean’s recommendation were not followed.

 

Given the strength of the review committee's arguments, one might assume that the lesson would be learned and that subsequent administrative evaluations of teaching would be based on more substantive grounds and with more deference to decisions that are the primary responsibility of faculty.

 

Unfortunately, that has not proven to be the case. At least two denials this spring (2022) repeat the powerfully discredited pattern. 

 

Spring 2022, Recommendation to Deny Tenure (overturning decisions by the Department RTP Committee, Department Chair, and College Dean)

 

Teaching.  The RTP committee [and Department Chair and Dean] found Dr. XXX to have achieved competence in teaching. . . .[My] concerns are documented in SRIs, have been referenced by the department chair and dean, and appeared in annual evaluations.  Dr. XXX’s SRI composite scores are among the worst I have seen at UVU, with scores often, and consistently during [their] tenure, appearing in the 2-3 range.  Open ended comments from these reports include failure to provide timely feedback to students, failure to provide meaningful feedback, and an inability to remain on topic during class. . . . Consistent failure to provide timely and meaningful feedback to students is detrimental to student success and incompatible with our mission as an institution.

 

…Note: The Dean, while approving tenure, appended a list of several dozen negative comments from the professor’s SRIs. Should one wish to evaluate positive comments, he added, they can be accessed in the dozens of SRIs for classes during the six years of the tenure track.

 

Spring 2022, Recommendation to Deny Promotion to the Rank of Professor (overturning decisions by the Department RTP Committee, the Department Chair, and the College Dean)

 

I have concerns about the strength of [their] teaching . . . that prevent me

from supporting [their] promotion. [They] have . . . several low SRI scores with concerning comments related to timely feedback and classroom preparation.

 

Why does this pattern of exclusive, non-contextual reliance on SRI scores and comments persist? Why is the context provided by disciplinary curricular needs, syllabi, rigor, and the judgements of colleagues and administrators closest to the work simply ignored? 

 

Promotion and tenure decisions are critically important for the university and for the candidates being evaluated. That such decisions are being made largely on SRI data is simply unacceptable. 

During the appeal last year, as a witness for the candidate, I made the following statement:

Because the distance between a disciplinary department and the administration is relatively vast, because administrators lack competence in the pedagogy and scholarship of a given discipline, because administrators have little familiarity with the requirements of a given curriculum, because, in short, administrators lack the experience and competence inherent in members of the RTP Committee, the AAUP recommends that “The governing board and president should, on questions of faculty status, as in other matters where the faculty has primary responsibility, concur with the faculty judgment except in rare instances and for compelling reasons which should be stated in detail.” (The full document is available here.) 

Relatively low SRI scores cited with no context and cherry-picked student comments are not compelling reasons. 

  

 .....A detailed letter by officers of the American Federation of Teachers at UVU and of the David R. Keller Chapter of the AAUP at UVU concerning current use of student evaluations by UVU administrators can be found here.