4.4 Faculty Evaluation Systems

The USG faculty evaluation system is comprised of annual evaluation, three-year pre-tenure evaluation, tenure evaluation, promotion evaluation and post-tenure evaluation. For faculty hired as a lecturer, senior lecturer, principal lecturer, instructor, or as an academic professional, the evaluation system is comprised of annual evaluations and promotion evaluation.

Each institution is responsible for establishing definitive policies, processes, and stated criteria for faculty evaluation that are aligned with the mission, statutes, and academic organization of the institution and are consistent with Regents’ policies. These policies, processes, and stated criteria must incorporate appropriate due process mechanisms and support the principles of academic freedom. Institutional performance criteria must be identified and defined at each level of evaluation and must be stated in writing and available in the institution’s faculty handbook posted on an institution’s website. All changes to performance criteria must be updated in the faculty handbook in a timely fashion. These updates must be done in advance of the next review cycle and allow time for faculty to incorporate those expectations into the preparation of their review documents (e.g. pre-tenure, tenure, promotion, and post-tenure).

Policies, Processes, and Reporting
Each institution must have written and published faculty evaluation review policies, processes, and criteria for faculty that are consistent with Board of Regents policy and USG guidelines and approved by the USG Chief Academic Officer. Each institution should develop templates for annual review, pre-tenure, tenure, promotion, and post-tenure applications. These templates should provide clear guidance to what the faculty members need to submit. Tenure-track faculty, tenured faculty, and faculty outside of the tenure process should be evaluated based upon their academic discipline-specific criteria, and the institutional evaluation rubric, consistent with the system level review policies and guidelines detailed in this handbook. All USG annual faculty evaluations must utilize the following Likert scale:

1 – Does Not Meet Expectations
2 – Needs Improvement
3 – Meets Expectations
4 – Exceeds Expectations
5 – Exemplary

Noteworthy achievement as referenced in BOR Policy 8.3.7.3 is reflective of a 4 or 5 on the above Likert Scale. Deficient and unsatisfactory as referenced throughout this document is reflective of a 1 or a 2 on the above Likert Scale. Annually, each institution must submit information regarding faculty annual reviews and PTR review outcomes to the Board of Regents. The reporting guidelines, structure, and timelines will be disseminated by the USG Academic Chief Officer.

Training
The USG will develop and deliver system-wide professional development trainings and resources for academic administrators who supervise faculty. Professional development training sessions and resources will be posted on MomentumU@USG, the USG virtual professional development platform. Each institution is responsible for ensuring that academic administrators are properly trained for all levels of evaluation as outlined in the Board of Regents Policy Manual and procedures disseminated by the USG Chief Academic Officer. Each institution must develop a robust annual professional development plan for academic administrators and faculty to ensure adherence to Board Policy procedures outlined in this handbook. In addition, the institution is responsible to provide professional development to faculty who serve on tenure and post tenure review committees.

Auditing Institutional Plans and Processes
Periodically, the USG Division of Internal Audits will perform institutional audits of annual, pre-tenure, tenure, promotional and post tenure (PTR) policies and procedures, for compliance with Board of Regents policies. The institutional audit reports and identified issues will be shared with the Chancellor, the Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Chief Academic Officer, and the Board of Regents Committees on Internal Audit, Risk, and Compliance, and Academic Affairs.

While the Board of Regents has delegated authority for tenure decisions to institution presidents, if an institution is adjudged to be carrying out its faculty review process in an insufficiently rigorous manner the Board of Regents may move the authority to award tenure to the Board level until institutional processes have been remediated. (BoR POLICY 8.3.5.1 FACULTY)

Review Principles and Guidelines

Each institution should use the following Review Principles and Guidelines to develop their institution-specific evaluation systems. The institutional evaluation system must be approved by the USG Chief Academic Officer.

Campuses will create clear and transparent assessment criteria and rubrics for faculty performance in each assessed campus category. Evaluation and assessment criteria must align to the mission and values of the institution. Departments may further develop institutional assessment criteria and rubrics specific to their discipline.
Criteria should be developed for each stage of a faculty member’s career from untenured Assistant Professor, through various levels of promotion, to stages of tenured Full Professor. Analogous criteria should also be developed for faculty who serve outside the tenure structure. These criteria will provide sufficient guidance to assess whether a faculty member’s performance is appropriate to their stage of professional career development at their institution, college/school, and in their department.
The development of these criteria should reflect the involvement of the institution through its academic affairs organization, colleges, departments, faculties, and should be approved through the institution’s faculty governance processes and procedures.
Both qualitative and quantitative assessments are acceptable; however, all methods of evaluation should strive for objectivity and reduce subjectivity as much as possible.
The measure of “Effectiveness in Academic Assigned Duties” should include assessments of both instructional quality and quality learning. Criteria should include measures such as an assessment of student perception, evidence of effective student learning, the use of continuous improvement methodologies, peer assessment of pedagogy, an evaluation of curricular design, quality of assessment and course construction, and the use of established learning science methodologies.
Evaluation of the Student Success component will involve an assessment of the faculty member’s involvement in activities inside and outside the classroom that deepen student learning and engagement for all learners. These aspects may include effective advising and mentoring; undergraduate and graduate research; other forms of experiential learning; engagement in other high impact practices; the development of student success tools and curricular materials; strategies to improve student career success; involvement in faculty development activities; and other activities identified by the institution to deepen student learning. Examples include, but are not limited to, Centers for Teaching and Learning, Chancellor’s Learning Scholars, Faculty Learning Communities and MomentumU@USG.
Evaluation of Research and Scholarship will take place within the context and mission of their department at that institution, whether within the faculty member’s discipline area, or as part of their scholarship of teaching and learning.
The institution will adjudge the Professional Service component by considering activities that include Institutional Service – such as various forms of active engagement, committee work, faculty senate activities, and major institution and/or system initiatives; Service to the Discipline – discipline-related service in local, regional, national, and international organizations; and community involvement.

Annual Evaluation
Faculty are evaluated annually by their appropriate supervisor as defined by the institution against the minimum criteria listed in BoR POLICY 8.3.5.1 FACULTY and BoR POLICY 8.3.7 TENURE AND CRITERIA FOR TENURE . The annual evaluation will encompass teaching; undergraduate/graduate student success activities; research/scholarship/creative activity or academic achievement; professional service to the institution or community; and continuous professional growth appropriate to the institution’s sector and mission, college or school and department. Institutions must ensure that workload percentages for faculty roles and responsibilities are factored into the performance evaluation model in a consistent manner. The overall evaluation must indicate whether the faculty member is making satisfactory progress toward the next level of review appropriate to their rank, tenure status, and career stage as noted in the abovementioned Likert scale.

The faculty member is responsible for providing documentation and materials for the annual evaluation. The appropriate supervisor will discuss with the faculty member in a scheduled conference the content of that faculty member’s annual written evaluation and his/her progression towards achieving future milestones.
The faculty member will sign a statement to the effect that he/she has been apprised of the content of the annual written evaluation.
The faculty member will be given a specific period (e.g., 10 working days) to respond in writing to the annual written evaluation, with this response to be attached to the evaluation.
The appropriate supervisor will acknowledge in writing the receipt of the response, noting changes, if any, in the annual written evaluation made as a result of either the conference or the faculty member’s written response. The specific time period for this response is 10 working days from the faculty member’s rebuttal/response. This acknowledgement will also become a part of the official personnel records. Annual reviews are not subject to discretionary review.
If the performance in any of the categories is judged to be a 1 – Does Not Meet Expectations or a 2 – Needs Improvement, the faculty member must be provided with a Performance Remediation Plan (PRP) to remediate their performance during the next year. The appropriate supervisor will develop the PRP in consultation with the faculty member. This will become part of the official personnel records.

Third Year Pre-Tenure Review (On Track Not Tenured)
Faculty who are employed on an annual tenure track contract will undergo a third-year pre-tenure review. Individual institutions will choose whether this review will serve in lieu of the annual evaluation or will be in addition to the annual evaluation. The purpose of the third-year pre-tenure review is to provide a rigorous analysis and detailed feedback of the faculty member’s body of work in the areas of teaching, student success activities, research/scholarship, and service towards tenure. The institution is responsible for clearly identifying the policies and procedures for third year pre-tenure reviews. This process should at least include a review from the department chair, peers, college/school wide tenure committee (if used) and the Dean. The previous annual evaluations must be part of the review. The overall evaluation must indicate whether the faculty member is making satisfactory progress toward tenure and promotion (BoR POLICY 8.3.5.1 FACULTY).

The faculty member is responsible for providing documentation and materials for the third-year pre-tenure review, as outlined in the institutional guidelines.

The appropriate supervisor will discuss with the faculty member in a scheduled conference the content of that faculty member’s third year pre-tenure review. A written report of the faculty member’s progression towards achieving future milestones of tenure will be provided to the faculty member after the conference.

The faculty member will sign a statement to the effect that he/she has been apprised of the content of the third-year pre-tenure evaluation.

The faculty member will be given a specific period (e.g., 10 working days) to respond in writing to the third year written evaluation, with this response to be attached to the evaluation.

The appropriate supervisor will acknowledge in writing receipt of the response, noting changes, if any, in the annual written evaluation made because of either the conference or the faculty member’s written response. The specific time period for this response is 10 working days from the faculty member’s rebuttal/response. This acknowledgement will become a part of the official records and is not subject to discretionary review.

If the performance in any of the categories is judged to be not successful/not satisfactory the faculty member must be provided with a Performance Remediation Plan (PRP). The appropriate supervisor will develop the PRP in consultation with the faculty member with feedback from any committee that participated in the third-year review. The PRP must be approved by the Dean of the academic unit. The faculty member will have one year to accomplish the goals/outcomes of the PRP. This will become part of the official personnel records.