administered and considered in this metric area.

Why would student written comments not be used as part of the faculty members evaluation and only for self-development? As long as they are properly considered, they can give some helpful context that scores cannot provide. We will now take into consideration student comments as well as total scores in our new policy. Chairperson read all evaluations, including comments. Faculty will address formally all student comments in the negative as a part of their narrative for self-evaluation in their annual performance review dossier.

For tabulation of scores, it states that the faculty member and the unit administrator will agree on the ratings to be given. Why would the faculty member evaluated be given input here? We will no longer be using these forms and will be using a tool derived from the EKU assessment form. Faculty will be required to sign off as to having received a copy of the evaluations provided and have the opportunity to provide rebuttals/appeal documentation per new policy 2.xx.

Failure to meet expectations in one or more area should trigger more than a monitoring plan toward remedy. Failure at some level should trigger a determination on removal and if the decision is not to remove, the rationale should be put forward The new evaluation plan includes peer, Chair, Dean, and Provost review. During this process, recommendations could lead to the Provost notifying the President of faculty non-reappointment recommendations. Failure to perform at the minimum default University Faculty Expectations metrics will trigger non-reappointment consideration recommendations.