In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

* University of Kansas General Principles for Developing Faculty Evaluation Plans * Cathy Ann Trower 1. Faculty evaluation criteria, procedures and instruments shall be developed through faculty participation in each department, college or division and express the performance expectations of the faculty in the areas of teaching/advising, research or creative activity, service, and (as applicable) professional performance (Regents Guidelines 1992). 2. The criteria for and process of annual evaluation should be adopted by a vote of the faculty. 3. Faculty evaluation criteria should include clear standards for adequate performance of academic responsibilities that are consistent with expectations for faculty at a research university. “Tenure … does not accord freedom from accountability . . . Sustained failure of a faculty member to carry out his or her academic responsibilities, despite the opportunities for University faculty development or other appropriate interventions, is a ground for consideration of dismissal from the University of Kansas, by the procedures adopted by the Faculty Code of Conduct for such actions” (Faculty Council, Chancellor, and Board of Regents, 1996). 4. Annual evaluation procedures and instruments should call for multiple measures of performance in each area, be sufficiently flexible to meet the objectives of the unit, and be sensitive to multi-year faculty activities and outcomes. 5. The annual evaluation process should yield multiple outcomes including information for departmental planning, merit salary decisions, progress toward promotion and/or tenure, differential allocation of effort, and strategies for renewal or development. 6. The outcomes of the evaluation of faculty performance and expectations for the future shall be shared in writing with faculty members and a copy kept on file in the unit. 7. The evaluation plan shall provide a mechanism to assure due process for faculty, including the opportunity to discuss evaluations and a procedure by which faculty who disagree with their evaluation may request a review. Page 220Required Format (with checklist) for Department/Center/School Faculty Evaluation Plans: 2008–9 A single document should be generated that describes the expectations, processes and outcomes for faculty evaluation in each unit. All plans should be written using the following format to ensure that the Provost’s and Dean’s Offices have complete information to respond to requests for, or analyses of, our criteria and procedures. Promotion and tenure criteria should be included as an Appendix to support candidate review by the University Committee on Promotion and Tenure. Note that promotion and tenure criteria and procedures should be submitted also to the Faculty Senate Committee on Standards and Procedures for Promotion and Tenure after approval by the Dean or Vice Provost for Research. Format: Unit Name Faculty Evaluation Plan Approved by the Faculty on , 200 Introduction Statement of Performance Expectations 1. Unit expectations: Statement of expectations for faculty in teaching (including advising), scholarly or creative activity and service with the weights assigned to each area indicating the department expected distribution of effort. If applicable, expectations in professional performance should be addressed. 2. Standards for Acceptable Performance for Tenured Faculty: Statement of the acceptable level of performance that meets faculty academic responsibilities during the post tenure period. Should identify the level of performance that will trigger the process for failure to meet academic responsibilities. 3. Differential Allocation of Effort: Description of the process and guidelines for determining individualized goals and expectations (differential allocation of effort). Annual Evaluation System 1. Overview: Description of the structure and timelines used in the annual evaluation process, including who is responsible for conducting the evaluation. NOTE: The faculty evaluation process must allow sufficient time for the written evaluation report to faculty and the opportunity for discussion of the report prior to the timelines established for merit salary decisions. Data for merit salary decisions is only one of multiple outcomes of the evaluation process. 2. Portfolio or Annual Report Preparation: Guidelines for preparation of the annual report should specify the required categories and multiple sources of data to bePage 221 provided to document teaching/advising, scholarly or creative activity, service, and, if applicable, professional performance. The period of time that should be documented should also be stated (e.g., current and previous year, three year period, etc.). Note: the new Student Survey of Teaching and guidelines on peer evaluation of teaching may require some modification to existing requirements for annual reports. For example, departments should no longer need to collect original student evaluation forms when they have access to the official summary data report on each faculty member. Student comments on teaching evaluations should be requested only if the unit has voted to consider...

Share