Classroom visitation by a team of colleagues will be an optional part of each Comprehensive Peer Review and will occur by April 30 of each academic year for those faculty members scheduled to undergo Comprehensive Peer Review that year. Any member of the peer review panel has the right to require a classroom visit if he/she feels that one is necessary for rendering a fair and informed judgment of teaching ability. The exception to this is for first year faculty, for whom classroom visitation is a mandatory component of the peer review and who will be reviewed after midterm of the Fall semester. The visitation team will be selected by the faculty member and the unit administrator, with each having equal input, and will consist of a minimum of two and a maximum of three faculty members. The visitation team may be composed of members of the Peer Review Panel, but others may be chosen. The classroom evaluation shall be based on one or more classroom visits. Members of the visitation team will use criteria established by their units. Faculty members who receive ratings of "does not meet expectations" in the performance category of teaching are required to have classroom observation as part of their Comprehensive Peer Review.

The unit administrator will review the curriculum vitae, the self-evaluation summary, and other optional documentation in the same manner as the peer reviewers. Any administrative reviewer may request specific documentation of any claim made in the curriculum vitae or in the self-evaluation summary. The administrator's review is due May 15 of the Academic year. Judgments in each category are "meets expectations"; "exceeds expectations"; or "does not meet expectations." The benchmarks established by each unit serve as guidelines for what constitutes "meets expectations" and what constitutes "exceeds expectations." If the respondent judges that the faculty member has not reached the benchmarks laid out in Form PDP/DEA-1 and has not achieved what is normally expected of a unit peer, the respondent must mark the faculty member as "does not meet expectations." If the respondent judges, on the basis of the unit benchmarks, that either the benchmarks listed in the faculty member's Form PDP/DEA-1 or the faculty member's achievements documented in the curriculum vitae are beyond what is normally expected of a unit peer, the respondent must mark the faculty member as "exceeds expectations."

Administrative evaluation consists of the tabulation of the peer, self, and administrative review (see above). The peer review forms will be tabulated by indicating the number of ratings in each category that were "meets," "exceeds," or "fails to meet." These judgments cannot be averaged. For instance, if seven reviewers each review a faculty member, he or she could receive five (5) meets expectations and two (2) exceeds in teaching, three (3) meets expectations and four (4) exceeds expectations in professional activity, and one (1) fails to meet, three (3) meets, and three (3) exceeds in service. These would all be recorded on the Administrative Tabulation form.

The faculty member and unit administrator will reach an agreement on the ratings to be given and will finalize the Professional Development Plan on Form PDP/DEA-1. At the

5-35