Faculty evaluations

Faculty evaluations, including annual feedback on progress toward tenure

Faculty evaluations policy: ACD 506–10: Annual Evaluations of Faculty

Guidelines for annual performance evaluation

Please note that clarification noted with “*” are Engineering specific.

Key points

  1. Should be done for all Faculty appointed at 50 percent FTE and greater, regardless of appointment category.
  2. Annual evaluations for faculty should be completed each year by the end of March.
    *This includes a summary page with your faculty scores along with signed top sheets.
  3. The review should cover the previous 36 months, with substantial emphasis on the current year.
    *This includes faculty who have taken leave during the previous 36 months. Please adjust the weighted averages appropriately.

Director role

  1. Notify faculty of what performance evaluation material is needed and the deadline for submission
  2. Provide work load assignments and individual faculty evaluation material to the peer review committee and establish a deadline for submission of the evaluation recommendation back to the Director
  3. Provide a written evaluation to each faculty member that comments on strengths, weaknesses, needed improvement, opportunities for growth, and expectations for future distribution of effort and performance
  4. Include in evaluations of tenure-eligible and those not yet at professor rank a statement indicating that the procedures for annual evaluation are not the same as those for a tenure or promotion review
  5. Assure that all work load/flexible performance arrangements are specified for the next year after each evaluation
  6. Provide the evaluations of individual faculty to the Dean as may be required by college bylaws.

Annual feedback on progress toward tenure

Refer to ACD 506–03: Faculty Probationary Appointments

In addition to the meeting the director has with the TT faculty member, and the performance evaluation that the director normally writes, the director should provide written feedback about the “progress toward tenure.” This feedback can be contained in the same document of the performance evaluation, but it must be “distinct” from the performance evaluation language. For example, the director can use a section heading or a subtitle differentiating the performance evaluation from the “progress toward tenure” feedback.

In terms of content, the assessment of “progress towards tenure” should be evaluating the progress of the candidate toward a balanced set of achievements contributing as a whole to the development of her/his professional personality. In other words, beyond the usual quantitative analysis of the individual activities (papers, proposals, student evaluations, etc.), the whole package needs to be well balanced.