College of Arts & Sciences

Faculty Evaluation Policies

Introduction

Faculty performance evaluations are a frequent occurrence for probationary tenure-track faculty. This document is intended to serve as a guide to aid in understanding these evaluations; it contains links to several relevant documents. One can also download a comprehensive package .

The basis for all performance evaluations is the document College of Arts and Sciences Promotion and Tenure Criteria . These criteria describe Excellent, Meritorious, Satisfactory, and Unsatisfactory levels of performance in the evaluation categories of teaching, scholarly and creative activity, and service. (Individual departments have also elaborated on these criteria, providing greater specificity related to each discipline.) The various faculty performance evaluations are annual review, retention review, midpoint review, tenure review, and promotion review. Only annual review examines performance over a single year; all other reviews are cumulative (normally from the point of hiring). Retention reviews and midpoint reviews for tenure track faculty are preliminary steps leading to the tenure decision and, as such, are part of the overall tenure process. All reviews judge performance in all three categories (teaching, scholarly and creative activity, and service), and use consistent evaluation labels (Excellent, Meritorious, Satisfactory, Unsatisfactory).

In reviews leading to the tenure decision (retention, midpoint and tenure reviews), the candidate also must be judged to have satisfactory potential for continuing contributions to the unit, College and University, which includes the collegial role, as stated in Board of Trustees policies (Article VI, Section 2):

As colleagues, professors have obligations that derive from common membership in the community of scholars. They respect and defend the free inquiry of associates. In the exchange of criticism and ideas they show due respect for the opinion of others. They acknowledge academic debts and strive to be objective in the professional judgment of colleagues. They accept their share of faculty responsibilities for the governance of the institution.

Within the College of Arts and Sciences a significant consideration in the evaluation of teaching (and to a lesser extend service, and scholarly and creative activity) is a faculty member's record and documentation reflecting efforts to foster the College of Arts and Sciences Desired Characteristics and Capabilities of Graduates. Candidates are specifically asked to address these efforts in midpoint, tenure, and promotion reviews.

In addition to the evaluation criteria, each type of evaluation has a procedure which includes a set of steps (review levels) with dates, and a format for presenting materials for review. This document provides an overview of each type of review, and includes relevant CAS policies in the appendices. Applicable University policies-SIUE Tenure Policy and Guidelines, and SIUE Promotion Policy and Guidelines-are to be found on the SIUE Faculty Handbook website.

Annual Review

Purpose: Annual review serves to create a record of accomplishment for the previous calendar year, to generate constructive feedback, and to provide the basis for annual merit salary increases. Since all evaluation reviews use the same labels, and judge the same categories, the results of annual reviews form the basis for cumulative reviews, which should result in significant linkage and consistency among the various reviews.

Procedure and Format: The overall process is detailed in the CAS Faculty Performance and Salary Increase Plan . The evaluation period is a calendar year and the process is a cycle. At the beginning of an evaluation period and in consultation with the Chair, individuals select goals and a percentage of effort assignment for teaching, scholarly and creative activity, and service. At the end of the evaluation period, they document results and accomplishments in all areas, using the departmental faculty activity report format. It is the faculty member's responsibility to provide a complete record. Faculty are evaluated relative to their individual goals, their percentage of effort assignment, and department and College criteria; evaluation includes both peer review and chair review. Normally the process is concluded by the third week in March. A copy of the evaluation is provided to the individual and sent to the Dean.

Goals for individual faculty should be chosen based upon University, College and departmental goals. They are mutually agreed upon with the Department Chair and should reflect a balance of teaching, scholarly and creative activity, and service. Ideally, goals are cast in terms of measurable objectives, a deadline for completion, the level of support needed, and an agreed upon method for measuring results.

The percentage of effort assignment should mirror these goals. The normal range of the percentage of effort is 50-80% in teaching, reflecting the strongest commitment to this area; 10-40% in scholarly and creative activity, and 10-40% in service. As faculty members select percentages, they should consider how the pattern over several years will affect their ability to demonstrate sufficient accomplishments in all three areas for tenure and promotion.

Retention Review

Purpose: Retention review serves to examine the cumulative record of progress toward tenure in teaching, scholarly and creative activity, and service for tenure track faculty. It also serves as the basis to fulfill the requirement of notice of retention or non-renewal.

Procedure and Format: The first two retention reviews occur at times other than annual reviews since they must meet separate deadlines. Retention notice is given to a faculty member by January 15 (providing four months notice) in the first year, and by September 15 (providing eight months notice) in the second year. Thereafter, retention and annual reviews occur at the same time. A chart Review Schedule for Tenure Track Faculty is included and helps clarify the timing of the various reviews. Department papers describe the process, which must include the advice of the tenured faculty. A copy of the retention review and recommendation is provided to the faculty member and sent to the Dean. See also the CAS Retention Review Policy .

Midpoint Review

Purpose: Midpoint evaluation of tenure track faculty is a systematic evaluation of progress toward tenure in teaching, scholarly and creative activity, and service. It is intended to be comprehensive, yet early enough for the candidate to have opportunity to focus on any areas which may need strengthening. It provides judgment at additional levels of review beyond the department, provides experience in the preparation of a tenure dossier, and serves as the retention review for that year.

Procedure and Format: The steps are outlined in CAS policy on Midpoint Evaluation of Tenure Track Faculty . The candidate's dossier is reviewed by tenured department faculty, the Department Chair, the CAS Promotion and Tenure Subcommittee, the Dean and the Provost. An abbreviated dossier is prepared according to the format in CAS Guidelines for Promotion and Tenure Dossiers .

Tenure Review

Purpose: Tenure review provides a systematic evaluation of accomplishments in teaching, scholarly and creative activity, and service, as well as potential for continuing contributions to the unit, College and University, in order to determine whether an individual will be awarded a tenured appointment. A tenured appointment signifies the permanent holding of an academic position of employment as governed by Board and University policies.

Procedure and Format: The steps are outlined in the CAS Promotion and Tenure Procedures . The candidate's dossier is reviewed by the tenured department faculty, the Department Chair, the CAS Promotion and Tenure Subcommittee, the Dean, the Provost, and the Chancellor. Tenure is conferred by the Board of Trustees. The dossier is prepared according to the CAS Promotion and Tenure Dossier Guidelines .

Recommendations for tenure (and retention) shall be based on the candidate's documented accomplishments and contributions in teaching, scholarly and creative activity, and service to the University and community, as well as on the candidate's potential for continuing contributions to the unit, College and University. To achieve tenure a candidate must be judged according to University, College and department criteria to be at least Meritorious in teaching, at least Meritorious in either service or in scholarly and creative activity, and at least Satisfactory in the other. The candidate also must be judged to have satisfactory potential for continuing contributions to the unit, College and University.

Promotion Review

Purpose: Promotion review determines whether a faculty member has sufficient accomplishments in teaching, scholarly and creative activity, and service to warrant promotion to the next rank.

The ultimate purpose of the process of promotion in academic rank is to encourage faculty members to achieve their highest potential and to foster their development in teaching, scholarly and creative activity, and service to the University and the community. Promotion in academic rank signifies that a faculty member has demonstrated accomplishments in teaching, scholarly and creative activity, and service, and demonstrates the confidence the University has in a faculty member's potential for increasing accomplishments in teaching, scholarship, and service.

Procedure and Format: The steps are outlined in CAS Promotion and Tenure Procedures . They are the same steps as for tenure review (except approval by the Board of Trustees is not required). The dossier is prepared according to the CAS Promotion and Tenure Dossier Guidelines . As with tenure, a candidate must be judged according to University, College and department criteria to be at least Meritorious in teaching, at least Meritorious in either service or scholarly and creative activity, and at least Satisfactory in the other. The cumulative record since the previous promotion is the basis for judgment.