Kentucky State University
COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION SYSTEM
FOR ASSESSMENT OF FACULTY PERFORMANCE
Four components make up the comprehensive faculty evaluation system: (1) a well planned and clearly defined means of evaluating faculty performance, (2) specific performance benchmarks, (3) a means of recognizing and rewarding merit, (4) a means of correcting performance that falls below expectations. This document establishes the means of evaluating faculty performance. The second component, specific performance benchmarks, must be established by individual units. A means of recognizing and rewarding merit must be addressed in separate policy documents. The means of correcting performance that does not meet expectations should be addressed in the tenure and post-tenure review policy documents.
The following presentation of the Comprehensive Evaluation System for Assessment of Faculty Performance (hereafter called the Comprehensive Evaluation System) is divided into four sections: 1) Overview of the System; 2) Methods and Criteria for Evaluation; 3) Instruments for Evaluation and Summary; 4) The Professional Development Plan (Form PDP/DEA-1). A listing of the contents of the faculty member's file and an Appendix containing forms to be used follows.
The current policy on Faculty Evaluation is as follows:
The evaluation of faculty and administrator performance is a cooperative, ongoing process intended to provide improvement in the quality of instruction and administration. The main means to accomplish this goal is the Comprehensive Evaluation System for the Assessment of Faculty Performance. This system is the basis on which all personnel actions should be made. For this system to be effective, it must be administered fairly and properly, and it must be reviewed (and if necessary revised) on an annual basis.
The proper administration of the Comprehensive Evaluation System depends upon the successful completion of its various phases. All participants in the system should understand its philosophy, purpose, specific objectives, and the guidelines for administering the particular components. The criteria to be used, i.e. the academic rank and job description (or outline of duties on the Distribution of Effort Form), must be clearly communicated prior to conducting the evaluation and must be used properly during the evaluation process. Faculty and administrators who are being evaluated should receive substantial feedback on the results of the evaluation, as outlined in the system. Finally, the process of conducting the evaluation must be
5-21