Procedures

Conducting Evaluations for Faculty

General Guidelines for Evaluations:

• a.All evaluations are conducted ethically, with recommendations and justifications based on relevant documented and verifiable information.
• b.Administrative reviewers (school chair, college dean, and provost) will ensure the performance standard evaluation recommendations are consistent with the goals and needs of the university, as well as the areas within their scope of responsibility.
• c.The faculty member will have a dossier consultation with their chair prior to February 1, 2023.
• d.Faculty must submit evidence of their teaching, research, and service performance in dossiers to their school chair by February 1, 2023. The performance areas will contain three categories: (1) Evidence of Quality Teaching Effectiveness, (2) Evidence of Quality Professional Growth and Scholarly Achievement, and (3) Evidence of Quality Service and Community Contribution.
• e.The performance evaluation item ratings are scored as follows:

Exceeds Expectations (3)

Meets Expectations (2)

Needs Improvement (1)

■ Unsatisfactory (0)

The categories represent the point per indicator within the category faculty member can earn. The overall average for each category on the rubric found in Appendix D will adhere to the following bands:

3.00 - 2.50 Exceeds Expectations

2.49 to 2.0 Meets Expectations

1.99 to 1.0 Needs Improvement

.99 - 0 Unsatisfactory

Additionally, the school chair will collect information on the compliance of the faculty with the annual executed contract and include this information in the performance evaluation. Compliance infractions will require a faculty performance improvement plan and each category of noncompliance will result in a three-point reduction (-3) from the faculty member's performance assessment.

Faculty with predominantly administrative, research, extension, or library appointments will be weighted according to the faculty member's contract.

9

ALL POLICIES ARE SUBJECT TO AMENDMENT