The expectations for high performance and productivity for faculty at Georgia Tech and in the Ivan Allen College are continuous from the point of hire through retirement or other points of departure. As stated in the Faculty Handbook (2008), “Periodic Peer Reviews (PPR) are aimed at facilitating faculty development and ensuring intellectual vitality and competent levels of performance by all faculty throughout their professional careers...the review provides an opportunity to assist a tenured faculty member in formulating a multi-year plan for professional growth and activity in teaching, research, and service based on his or her interests and the needs and mission of the unit and the Institute” (88). We expect this goal setting process to be particularly instructive in helping tenured faculty to chart an appropriate path from associate to full professor status but also to encourage and support full professors in remaining actively engaged in faculty enterprises throughout their employment at Georgia Tech.
The following documentation is required in the order listed for academic faculty undergoing periodic peer review. The following guidelines are only an outline of the procedures for PPR. Please refer to the Faculty Handbook for details.
1. Institute “Periodic Peer Review” Cover Sheet – All items on the cover sheet should be completed, even if there is no data or it is not applicable. Enter a “0” or “n/a” as appropriate, for such situations
2. Approved Individualized Evaluation Criteria – The Periodic Peer Review policies assume the default criteria are the unit's promotion and tenure criteria. Alternative criteria may be applied to reflect the varying emphases and roles that senior faculty may play. The School Chair is responsible for formulating individualized alternative criteria, after consultation with the faculty member. Any understanding regarding individualized alternative criteria for evaluation must be reached and confirmed in writing prior to the submission of documentation.
3. Unit-level Review Committee Letter – The committee shall be comprised of faculty peers within the unit and holding a rank at or above that of the candidate. If there are not sufficient faculty ranks within the unit to meet the three member minimum, a replacement(s) from another IAC unit who is familiar with the candidate’s field and body of work will be selected to complete the committee.
This committee will prepare a letter addressed to the reviewee assessing his/her performance based on the evaluation criteria described above, including any approved individualized criteria.
4. School Chair’s Evaluation Letter – The school chair will write a letter to the unit PPR committee including the summary and assessment of the reviewee’s performance on criteria and a detailed assessment of the reviewee’s goals and plans for the next five years. The school chair’s letter shouldnotoffer a 3 or 5 year recommendation.
5. Summary of Annual Performance Evaluations – (to include rebuttals) for the years under consideration. The summary shall be prepared by the Chair and reviewed by the Faculty member.
6. Faculty Member’s Personal Narrative – A statement (5-page maximum) should focus on the candidate’s most noteworthy accomplishments for the years under review. In the case of individuals undergoing a second or subsequent periodic peer review, this should include specific information on how goals from the previous review have been met.
7. Faculty Member’s Statement of Five Year Goals – A statement of professional goals for the next 5 year period.
8. Faculty Member’s Vita – The standard format required for reappointment, promotion and tenure is the preferred format for the C.V. but the faculty member may choose any format he/she believes is the most informative.
9. Evaluation of Teaching – For faculty member’s first PPR, all evaluations should be included. For subsequent reviews, only evaluations for courses taught since the last evaluation should be included.