Faculty Performance Evaluation Policy
[Originally approved 9/94 by CoB Faculty]
[Revisions approved 2/97, 7/02, 10/09, 2/12, 10/20, 12/23]
This webpage describes the college system for annual review of faculty. This includes a Faculty Evaluation Rubric for evaluating faculty performance on a standardized rating scale, and a standardized process across all departments.
Activity Categories
Faculty activity will be evaluated in three categories: Teaching, Sustained Engagement Activities to maintain Faculty Qualification and Professional Activity/ Service (plus Interaction with the Profession for the School of Accountancy).
Faculty Evaluation Criteria
Appendix A - Faculty Evaluation Criteria (see separate document) provides an anchored list to categorize faculty activity into five levels within each of the three basic activity categories. A faculty member’s performance will be ranked at highest of these levels where a significant amount (in quantity or quality) of their activity matches the activities listed at that level. Level 2 in each activity category is designed to include specified minimum expectations or activities that all faculty are expected to demonstrate. If a faculty member fails to meet one of the activities at this level, the failure to meet all minimum expectations may be used to reduce a faculty member’s rating in that category.
The Annual Evaluation Process
For annual performance evaluation, all faculty members (on a full-year continuing contract – tenure track and instructional) will submit materials for the immediate past academic year (Fall, Spring and Summer semesters). This submission will take the form of a Faculty Activity Narrative that places activities into the Faculty Evaluation Criteria levels for each of the three basic activity categories and provides an explanation of the rationale for those placements based on the Faculty Evaluation Criteria (see Appendix A). These activities must be documented by data recorded in Digital Measures along with any other supporting documentation the faculty member wishes to provide such as course evaluations, letters from committee chairs, copies of intellectual contribution activities, and other evidence of activities. This material will be submitted initially to the department chair/director by October 1st and then forwarded to the departmental Faculty Evaluation Committee. This committee will review the faculty member's Faculty Activity Narrative and use the Faculty Evaluation Criteria to complete the Faculty Annual Evaluation Form (see separate form) that ranks the activities for the faculty member at one of the rubric levels in each of the three basic activity categories. This form will be submitted to the department chair/director for consideration along with the materials submitted by the faculty member. The department chair/director will create the final ranking of the activities of the faculty member for the three basic activity categories. This decision will be documented on the Faculty Annual Evaluation Form, which will serve as the official departmental evaluation of the faculty member's performance. This form will include rankings for the three basic activity categories with a rationale for those rankings and an assessment of the academic and professional qualifications for each faculty member. The department chairperson and faculty member will also prepare a Faculty Development Plan (see separate form) outlining activities for improving or maintaining performance in the three basic activity categories. This form will be signed by both the faculty member and the department chairperson to acknowledge agreement with the plan.
Copies of the committee’s Faculty Annual Evaluation Form (Peer), the department/school version of the Faculty Evaluation Form, and the Faculty Development Plan, will be sent to the faculty member. All supporting documentation will be returned to the faculty member. New faculty under full-time contract are not required to prepare a Faculty Activity Narrative and Development Plan until after the completion of their first year (or by the first fall term if they start in a spring term). A summary of the rankings for each faculty member of the department will be submitted by the chairperson to the Dean. The Dean and department chairs/director will meet to compare rankings across departments to ensure consistency in the application of the Faculty Activity Rubric to each faculty member’s performance and to look for opportunities to improve this process.
Faculty Evaluation Committee Composition
The department Faculty Evaluation Committee shall consist of at least five members with a majority of the committee from the Tenure-Track faculty and at least one Instructional faculty member elected annually (excluding department chairs/directors). In addition, the faculty committee chair will invite one member who is a Tenure Track faculty member from outside the department to be part of the committee. If there are no Instructional faculty in the department, a substitute from another department will be obtained using the same process. This committee will participate in an advisory role to the department chair/school director in the Faculty Annual Performance Evaluation process. The department chair/school director may sit on the committee as a non-voting member so they can hear the discussion.
| Deadline Date | Deadline Information |
|---|---|
| September 1 | Elect Faculty Evaluation Committee |
| October 1 | Last date for submission of Faculty Activity Narrative, and Faculty Development Form to department chairs/directors. Last day for input of activities into Digital Measures. |
| End of Fall Semester | Faculty Evaluation committee submits the Faculty Annual Evaluation Form (peer) along with the faculty member's materials to the department chair/director. |
| Beginning of Spring Semester | Chairs/Directors create preliminary departmental evaluation of faculty and provide summary of ratings to Dean. Exec Team meets to discuss ratings across departments / schools for consistency. Chair finalizes departmental evaluations. |
| February 1 | Chairs/Directors provide faculty with a written statement of his or her evaluation. If Chair’s/Director’s ratings on the Faculty Evaluation Form are different than the ratings of the Faculty Evaluation Committee, the Chair/Director will provide an explanation for the change to the Faculty Evaluation Committee. |
| February 15 through April 1 | Department chairs/directors meet with faculty to discuss their annual performance, academic and professional qualifications, and to create the faculty development plan. |
| April 1 | Deadline for faculty appeal to chair/director (when applicable) |
Relationship to Workload Policy
Each faculty member should annually reach agreement with the department chair/ school director on the percentage of activity under the three activity categories (plus interaction with the Profession in the School of Accountancy) in accordance with the College of Business Faculty Workload Policy. This results in a relative percentage of effort in the basic activity categories. For raise calculations these percentages will become weights that will be applied to the rankings from the departmental/school Faculty Annual Evaluation Form. Faculty may elect to change workload allocations within the defined percentage parameters at any time prior to the end of the evaluation period. For example, faculty with a 30-40% research load would be able to add or subtract the load within the 10% range. Percentages outside these ranges may be negotiated between the faculty member and the department/school for special circumstances.
Translation of Ratings into Raises
From the initial raise pool received from the provost, a percentage for the Dean’s special merit pool may be removed. For purposes of raise calculation, the ratings will be translated into a numerical equivalent as follows:
- Level 1: Point Value = 0
- Level 2: Point Value = 1
- Level 3: Point Value = 2
- Level 4: Point Value = 3
- Level 5: Point Value = 4
These numerical equivalents will then be weighted by multiplying the numerical equivalent by the percentage derived from the faculty workload policy. The weighted numerical equivalents will then be added to produce a weighted average rating for the three basic activity categories. Since the percentages from the workload policy will add up to one, this weighted average rating will result in a number between zero and four. The final scores of all faculty members in department/school will be averaged. Each faculty member’s salary is “normalized” relative to this average by dividing the faculty score by the department’s/school’s average. This normalized score is multiplied by the percentage of the raise pool that is allocated to the department/school using total departmental salaries as a basis of allocation. This results in a percentage that is multiplied by the faculty member’s base salary to come up with a dollar raise. These dollar raises are adjusted slightly by the chair/director to make sure all the raise dollars are allocated. Adjustment will be made by the Chair/Director to stay within the control totals while maintaining consistency between faculty members with the same rating. If this process results in a faculty member falling below the minimum stipulated by the Provost, additional funds will typically be added to bring the salary increase up to the minimum raise unless permission from the Provost to go below the minimum is obtained.
Years Without Raise Pools
In the event that the university does not have a raise pool, the evaluation from a particular year will not result in raise. This can create issues when faculty have a particularly strong evaluation in a year when that performance does not result in a higher raise.
To recognize this potential effect, ratings from years where there was no raise pool can be “banked” and used as part of an average in subsequent years when there is a raise.
Specifically, if there is no raise pool for one year and then raises return, the faculty member will have the option of averaging the score from the non-raise year with the score from the second year when raises are being awarded. Alternatively, the faculty member can also choose to simply use the score from the raise year and not use the score from the non-raise year.
If there are no raises for multiple years, the averaging can include up to three non-raise years plus the raise year. If there are more than three consecutive non-raise years, only the most recent three years will be used. All of the non-raise years must be included in the average if the faculty member chooses the averaging method.