General Descriptions and Faculty Responsibilities
The quality of any university is sustained through the dedicated and creative work of its faculty. Objective, systematic, and thorough appraisal of each faculty member from appointment through promotions in rank is essential to the university’s ability to maintain a reputation of quality and distinction. This document and the guidelines within are intended to provide common criteria and a consistent procedure for evaluation and promotion of all Life University faculty members.
Annual Evaluation Process for All Full-Time Faculty Members
Components of the Evaluation
Fall Quarter:
1. Faculty member prepares the following information for the self-evaluation:
a. A minimum single page reflective summary of the faculty member’s progress and challenges during the past year
b. Completed Rank and Promotion Rubric i Faculty holding the ranks of Professor and Professor Emeritus are exempt from this item ii Rubric should include at least one year of accomplishments and up to 5 years for faculty of Assistant or Associate Professor rank
c. Evidence of accomplishments in teaching, scholarship, and service
d. Student Rating of Instruction (SRI) results
e. Peer review observations of teaching if applicable within that cycle
Winter Quarter:
2. Immediate Supervisor’s summary report including:
a. Records of classroom observations
b. Review of job description
c. Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) if necessary
d. Recommendation regarding reappointment
Spring Quarter:
• University Performance Engagement Program (PEP) (April)
• Supervisor sends recommendation to Dean (May)
• Dean sends recommendation/materials to HR
• Dean sends **recommendations to CAO
• CAO sends **summary (spreadsheet) approvals to HR
• HR sends out appointment letters (June 1)
Evaluation Leading to Multi-Year Letter of Appointment
In higher education institutions without a tenure system, experienced and effective faculty members may be offered multi-year letters of appointment. Such an arrangement contributes to stability for both the faculty members and the institution. At the same time, it retains flexibility in staffing, and given the appropriate monitoring of ongoing performance, it assists in meeting the rapidly changing demands of higher education, the expectations of the public, and the requirements of accrediting agencies in the 21st Century.
When developing a process for implementing multi-year letters of appointment it is important to balance competing priorities. The process must
• Require the documentation of excellence in teaching, service both to the university and beyond, and scholarship
• Account for the fluctuating demand of faculty positions in various departments within the university
• Not be so burdensome that it cannot be effectively implemented
The Rank and Promotion Process is fully described in Appendix 5.
Timeline for Newly Hired Faculty Members*
*Faculty members entering Life University with substantial documentation of teaching excellence may negotiate an agreement with the Dean and Chief Academic Officer to enter the process below at a later stage. In no case will they enter beyond year 2, and in all cases they will be observed and evaluated in detail during their first two years.
Year 1: Focus on evaluating teaching and developing expectations for progress in teaching, scholarship, and service
1. Faculty member is granted a reduced teaching load to allow adequate time for course preparation
a. A course release amounting to one (1) credit hour will be granted the first time a faculty member is assigned as primary instructor to a course during the faculty member’s first year.
b. If an instructor is responsible for multiple sections of the same course, the course release will only be granted for the first course section.’
2. Faculty member, in conjunction with their immediate supervisor, will review the job description and identify opportunities for professional growth for the next three (3) years. Life University Faculty Handbook Approved October 2021
3. Faculty Peer review is required for all faculty members within a two-year cycle. Priority is granted to faculty members seeking rank and promotion; however, secondary priority will be granted to new faculty members in attempts to ensure a peer review observation within their first year.
a. The results of the peer review process including summary report and rubric will be included in the faculty member’s annual evaluation
4. The faculty member’s immediate supervisor will perform formative evaluations including:
a. Observation of at least four classes, clinical sessions, library presentations, or other appropriate teaching settings
b. Observations will ideally be spread out and scheduled one per quarter
c. Meetings will be scheduled with the faculty member before and after the observation
d. Following each observation, the supervisor will compose a summary report and provide the faculty with written and verbal feedback
5. The immediate supervisor meets with the faculty member to review their performance based on the faculty member’s, reflective summary, rank and promotion rubric, SRI results, peer review, and classroom observations.
a. The supervisor will provide a written summary of the meeting to the faculty member and place a copy in his/her permanent file in Human Resources.
6. The immediate supervisor may recommend to the Dean to:
a. Issue a 1-year letter of appointment
b. Issue a 1-year letter of appointment with an assessable Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) if there are identified performance concerns
c. Issue a terminal year letter of appointment
d. Issue a letter of non-renewal
7. The Dean reviews the faculty member’s complete annual evaluation and forwards all evaluation materials to HR and recommendations to the CAO regarding reappointment.
Year 2: Maintain a focus on teaching; begin limited-service activities; initiate scholarship as detailed in the development plan
1. Faculty member is given a standard teaching load though credit for new course preparations will still be granted as outlined in the Workload Guidelines of the Faculty Handbook.
2. If Peer review was not possible within year 1, it must be included in the faculty member’s second year review.
3. Required observation sessions and reporting by the immediate supervisor will be reduced to two observations unless a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) was included as part of the faculty member’s appointment renewal. Observations must take place during different quarters. If a remediation plan was implemented, four observations will be required as in Year 1.
4. Faculty member, in conjunction with their immediate supervisor, will review the job description and established plan for professional growth.
a. The supervisor will provide a written summary of the meeting to the faculty member and place a copy in their permanent file.
b. If a remediation plan was implemented, progress toward that plan must be documented and included as part of the annual evaluation.
5. The immediate supervisor may recommend to the Dean to:
a. Issue a 1-year letter of appointment
b. Issue a 1-year letter of appointment with an assessable PIP if there are identified performance concerns
c. Issue a terminal year letter of appointment
d. Issue a letter of non-renewal
6. The Dean reviews the faculty member’s complete annual evaluation and forwards all evaluation materials to HR and sends the CAO recommendation regarding reappointment.
7. In all instances except a recommendation for renewal, the Dean will converse with the CAO.
Year 3: Approaching eligibility for promotion and multi-year letters of appointment
1. Review of Faculty member’s self-evaluation
2. An updated self-evaluation and associated documents should be composed including goals for professional development and teaching evolution for the next three years
3. After 3 years, a faculty member is eligible for rank and promotion. Though they are encouraged to, a faculty member is not required to apply for an increase in rank. However, the scores on their rank and promotion rubrics included with their self-evaluations should document continued improvement in teaching, service, and scholarship activities
4. Peer review and mentoring as in Year 1
5. Supervisory observations will be maintained at two per annum unless a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) is in place
6. Each unique course taught by the faculty member should be observed either by the immediate supervisor, peer reviewer, or both at least once in a three-year time span.
7. Any course in which performance was rated of concern should be monitored annually or potentially with multiple observation visits if included in a remediation plan.
8. The immediate supervisor meets with the faculty member to review their performance based on the faculty member’s, reflective summary, rank and promotion rubric, SRI results, peer review, and classroom observations.
a. The supervisor will provide a written summary of the meeting including any progress toward a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) if applicable, to the faculty member and place a copy in his/her permanent file.
9. The immediate supervisor may recommend to the Dean to:
a. Issue a 1-year letter of appointment
b. Issue a 1-year letter of appointment with an assessable Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) if there are identified performance concerns
c. Issue a terminal year letter of appointment
d. Issue a letter of non-renewal
10. The Dean reviews the faculty member’s complete annual evaluation and forwards all evaluation materials to HR and sends recommendations to the CAO regarding reappointment.
11. In all instances except a recommendation for renewal, the Dean will converse with the CAO.
Recurring Faculty Annual Evaluation Process
1. Review of Faculty member’s self-evaluation
2. An updated self-evaluation and associated documents should be composed including a plan for professional growth and teaching evolution for each three-year cycle.
3. After 3 years, a faculty member is eligible for rank and promotion. Though they are encouraged to, a faculty member is not required to apply for an increase in rank. However, the scores on their rank and promotion rubrics included with their self-evaluations should document continued improvement in teaching, service, and scholarship activities
4. Peer review should occur on a two-year rotating cycle.
5. Supervisory observations will be maintained at two per annum, unless a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) is in place.
6. Each unique course taught by the faculty member should be observed either by the immediate supervisor, peer reviewer, or both at least once in a three-year time span.
7. Any course in which performance was rated of concern should be monitored annually or potentially with multiple observation visits as included in the Performance Improvement Plan.
8. The immediate supervisor meets with the faculty member to review their performance based on the faculty member’s, reflective summary, rank and promotion rubric, SRI results, peer review, and classroom observations.
a. The supervisor will provide a written summary of the meeting including any progress toward a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) if applicable, to the faculty member and place a copy in his/her permanent file.
9. The immediate supervisor may recommend to the Dean to:
a. Issue a letter of appointment
b. Issue a letter of appointment with an assessable Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) if there are identified performance concerns
c. Issue a terminal year letter of appointment
d. Issue a letter of non-renewal
*Faculty members who are eligible for a multi-year appointment may be issued a 1-year appointment letter if under a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP).
10. The Dean reviews the faculty member’s complete annual evaluation and forwards all evaluation materials to HR and sends recommendations to the CAO regarding reappointment.
11. In all instances except a recommendation for renewal, the Dean will converse with the CAO.
Adjunct Faculty Biennial Evaluation Process Summary
The Adjunct Faculty Biennial Review (AFBR) is an important tool, which encourages professional development, and which serves to document the adjunct faculty member’s accomplishments and achievements. Components of the AFBR are as follows:
1. Faculty member’s self-evaluation:
a. A minimum single page summary of the faculty member’s progress and challenges during the past evaluation cycle
b. A Professional Development Plan (PDP) is not required for adjunct faculty members, nor is completion of the rank and promotion rubric
c. Student Rating of Instruction (SRI) results
d. Peer review observations of teaching
2. Immediate Supervisor’s summary report including:
a. Records of classroom observations
b. PIP if necessary
c. Recommendation regarding reappointment
3. Dean’s decision to reappoint or not
Biennial Evaluation Requirements for Adjunct Faculty:
1. Faculty Peer review is required for all faculty members within a two-year cycle.
a. The results of the peer review process including summary report and rubric will be included in the faculty member’s AFBR
2. The adjunct faculty member’s immediate supervisor will perform formative evaluations including:
a. Observation of at least two classes, clinical sessions, library presentations, or other appropriate teaching settings
b. Observations will be announced and will ideally be spread out and scheduled one per year
c. The supervisor will compose a summary report and provide the adjunct faculty member with written and verbal feedback
3. The immediate supervisor meets with the adjunct faculty member at the end of the evaluation cycle to review her/his performance based on the adjunct faculty member’s self-evaluation, SRI results, peer review, and classroom observations.
a. The supervisor will provide a written summary of the meeting to the adjunct faculty member and place a copy in his/her employment record on file with Human Resources.
4. The Dean has authority to decide whether to reappoint an adjunct faculty member or not
|