Faculty Performance Review Process
This document summarizes the standard procedures that were developed by the Academic Council to be used by all programs to evaluate faculty members. The Institute uses the Mentor application to track faculty accomplishments and work plan.
Timeline The online system is available year-round for faculty members to update with their accomplishments. In the spring, each school dean and center director is responsible for developing an internal timetable and communicating it to their respective faculty members to assure that adequate time is allowed for the faculty evaluation process.
by May 15 Faculty members meet with their supervisors to discuss their completed self-evaluations and prepare for future work plan.
by June 1 Deans and directors approve faculty evaluations, routing to the Office of the Provost for review.
by June 8 Provost reviews and approves faculty evaluations. The Office of the Provost communicates faculty evaluation scores to the Office of Human Resources.
July 1 Office of Human Resources sends letters to faculty communicating whether reappointment and/or salary merit raises have been awarded.
Performance Rating System Each category on the faculty evaluation for which a faculty member has some responsibility is given a performance score. Each of the performance scores is then weighted according to the percentage of total effort that is assigned to that area of responsibility. The simple sum of the weighted performance scores is the overall performance score. The online system will automatically calculate the overall performance score. For example:
|
Category
|
Performance Score
|
Weighting (% total effort)
|
Weighted Performance Score
|
|
Teaching
|
4
|
0.5 (50%)
|
2
|
|
Research
|
3
|
0.2 (20%)
|
0.6
|
|
Service
|
4.5
|
0.3 (30%)
|
1.4
|
|
|
|
4.0 = Overall Performance Score
|
The scoring system is based on an equal interval 5 point scale, where 5 represents “extraordinary performance” and 1 is “below expectations.” Scores may be given in 0.5 increments. This rubric assumes a "best fit" approach and allows supervisors to exercise professional judgment. All performance scores must be accompanied by explanatory comment.
Most importantly, these definitions are built around the assumption that a score of 3 is considered the expected level of excellent performance and defines a faculty member who fulfills all job responsibilities well. This is the standard we expect of all faculty. In the self-assessment, faculty must provide clear documentation and rationale to justify any score above 3.0.
Teaching
- Below Expectations: Problematic classroom or other teaching performance; unreliable advising and frequent unavailability; indifference toward or unreasonable resistance to meeting teaching standards.
- Meets Minimal Expectations: Fulfills all teaching responsibilities; meets minimal qualitative expectations in the classroom. Little or no curricular development; minimal efforts at improvement; one or more problematic elements in teaching.
- Expected Excellence: Fulfills all teaching responsibilities well. Evidence of overall excellence in teaching, advising, and student mentoring.
- Above Expectations: Fulfills all teaching responsibilities very well. Demonstrable overall excellence in teaching, advising, and student mentoring; mentoring faculty; unique contributions to curriculum or program development; unique contributions to the effectiveness or efficiency of teaching and student evaluation.
- Extraordinary: Exhibits extraordinary leadership in curriculum and program development, mentoring students and faculty.
Research/Scholarship
- Below Expectations: No scholarly or creative activity or activity of a quality below expectations given rank and position.
- Meets Minimal Expectations: Scholarship or research productivity not commensurate with rank and position.
- Expected Excellence: Scholarly activity and productivity commensurate with rank and position; evidence of future plans with high likelihood of successful completion.
- Above Expectations: Substantial scholarly achievement relative to rank and position; completion of important research/scholarly projects in accordance with long- term plans.
- Extraordinary: Significant and rigorous scholarship in prestigious venues. Major research or scholarly achievements relative to rank and position.
Service (to the Program, Institute, and Profession)
- Below Expectations: Little or no meaningful or useful activity in serving the program, school, or Institute in important ways; behavior of a professionally unacceptable kind or harmful effect.
- Meets Minimal Expectations: A minimal level of useful activity, relative to rank and seniority, in serving the program, Institute, or profession.
- Expected Excellence: Consistently useful and effective service appropriate to rank and seniority in serving the Institute, program, and profession at the regional or national level.
- Above Expectations: Initiative and leadership with consistently excellent results in important projects, appropriate to rank and position, at regional and national level.
- Extraordinary: Recognition for exceptional service to the Institute or profession at national or international level.
Administration
- Below Expectations: Failure to carry out assigned administrative tasks.
- Meets Minimal Expectations: A minimal level of attention or inconsistency in assigned administrative tasks.
- Expected Excellence: Performance of all assigned administrative tasks in an excellent and highly effective manner.
- Above Expectations: Significant administrative accomplishments that enhance administrative function of the unit.
- Extraordinary: Outstanding administrative accomplishments that go well beyond what is expected in performing the assigned tasks; taking initiative and a leadership role resulting in outstanding outcomes of benefit to the program and Institute.