Evaluation of Faculty

________________________________________
Document Number: FacHR--116

Date Originally Created: 01/19/2012
Revised: 06/10/2018
Revised: 09/03/2019
________________________________________

I. Policy Statement

1. Evaluation of Faculty
The ability of a university to perform, evolve, and develop academic distinction depends both on the individual accomplishments of each faculty member and on the combined accomplishments of the faculty as a whole. Thus, the extent of a university’s success and reputation depend upon the talents that exist among its faculty and how effectively those talents are marshaled to accomplish the mission of the academy. An effective faculty evaluation system is essential to attaining and maintaining a high quality academic institution. Properly administered, an evaluation system will encourage professional growth of individual faculty members, assure retention of those faculty members who demonstrate a high level of scholarship and academic performance, and permit appropriate recognition of achievement. The faculty evaluation process is designed to assist the institution in attracting promising faculty members and helping them reach their potential, as well as retaining outstanding faculty and rewarding their proficiency.

Cumberland University recognizes two categories of faculty; regular faculty and adjunct faculty. Regular faculty (hereafter: faculty) are those that are hired with the expectation of continued development toward the university mission and continuity in their employment at Cumberland University. Adjunct faculty are those that are typically appointed for specific courses based on expertise and training and may teach up to nine credit hours each semester with no expectation of continued employment. Although this document pertains primarily to faculty, adjunct faculty may also be evaluated following the procedures outlined here within.

1.1 Faculty Evaluation
Deans and program directors shall maintain formal and informal mechanisms for communicating to faculty, particularly new faculty members, what the university’s expectations are for creative, scholarly, or professional activity in their discipline.

School deans are expected to conduct on-going as well as periodic evaluations of full-time faculty. School deans shall conduct periodic evaluations of faculty performance in the domains specified below on a specific and published schedule.

Between periodic reviews school deans should be aware of and responsive to the needs of faculty, the quality of coursework, the use of assessment for continuous improvement, and the nature of faculty-student interactions on an on-going basis.

1.1.a Annual Evaluation
The annual evaluation provides, on a regular basis, an opportunity to judge the progress of a faculty member’s performance during the past year and to develop goals and objectives of achievement for the future. Furthermore, it is the formal process underpinning a decision to renew or discontinue employment; it may also form the basis for any annual recognition or other rewards. Cumulatively, the annual evaluations establish a continuous written record of expectations and performance that will encourage professional growth and provide support for promotion, multi-year contracts, merit awards and other recognition. The annual evaluation process helps develop the best match between the faculty member's expertise and the institutional mission.

These evaluations provide faculty members with a written record of continuing expectations and accomplishments and an ongoing critique of strengths and weaknesses, and a set of base documents that support selection for specific rewards that may be occasionally offered by the university or school. The primary purpose of these annual evaluations is to assist individual faculty members in developing their talents and expertise to the maximum extent possible and consistent with the role and mission of the university.

2. Evaluation Criteria
Faculty members are hired to accomplish objectives of specific academic programs or schools and are to be judged accordingly. Particular faculty members will vary in the extent to which their responsibilities emphasize one or more elements of the university’s mission and the criteria against which individual faculty members are evaluated must reflect these dynamic assignments. The specific nature and purpose of a faculty member’s annual review will vary in accord with that his or her type of appointment and rank.

Individuals will be evaluated according to national norms or performance of the faculty in an accredited post-baccalaureate institution, specifically:
1. quality of teaching, research or scholarship, and service;
2. commitment to the mission of the university; and
3. quality of student mentoring and advising.

The following three elements should be included in every faculty member's annual evaluation documentation:

1. Administrative Evaluation conducted by school deans – See Appendix A for template.
2. Annual Activity Report (AAR) – See Appendix B for template.
3. Student Evaluations, which are collected at the conclusion of each course. See Appendix C for template.

II. Policy Procedures

All academic units implementing the annual evaluation process are required to follow these procedures.

Initially, the school dean with the approval of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs will outline the expectations of a position through its job description, and in the event of position openings through the job posting.

The Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs will outline the general apportionment of the faculty member’s major responsibilities in the approved letter of appointment.

Within the terms of this general apportionment of responsibilities and subject to a faculty member’s general area of competence, the details of a faculty member’s specific assignments or job description may be subject to joint consultation, to include the consideration of the faculty member, the Provost and Vice President for Academic affairs, the school dean, and program director concerned. Adjustments in expectations for faculty members may occur in keeping with changing institutional needs. Such adjustments shall occur in a timely fashion and with reasonable effort made to assure mutual understanding – another aim of the annual evaluation process. It must be clear, however, that no special adjustments of norms for programs or individuals shall alter the university’s fundamental criteria as articulated in the policy statement above.

1. School deans will create a faculty evaluation schedule that ensures that all faculty members in their school will know when their evaluation will occur; this may be annually or on a different depending on a clearly stated rationale communicated by the school dean to the faculty that report to him or her, but at least once every three years.

2. At an appropriate time, the school dean will ask each faculty member to submit a written record of activities undertaken during the previous calendar year, known as the Annual Activity Report (due by May 15).

3. If a faculty member is being evaluated accoding to the schedule above, the dean must meet with the faculty member before the start of the following semester in which the faculty person is teaching.

4. The written evaluation of the faculty member should clearly indicate any serious concern the evaluating administrator has regarding the faculty member’s performance that may have been noted in on-going and informal evaluation throughout the academic year or that is indicated in documents submitted for periodic evaluation. Through the annual evaluations of performance, faculty members should be apprised of deficiencies in time for them to take corrective action. The review will make recommendations for self-improvement and professional development which will enhance the faculty’s performance. This is also the appropriate time for the immediate supervisor to make commendations on the faculty’s accomplishments.

5. Prior to preparation of the final written evaluation, the faculty member under consideration shall meet with their school dean or designee to discuss the faculty member’s performance.

6. A written evaluation of the faculty member’s performance must be prepared by the dean. Where consultation with other faculty is required as part of the evaluation process, the written evaluation must incorporate these faculty views.

7. The written evaluation must be shared with and signed by the faculty member indicating that he or she has seen the document. The faculty member’s signature does not imply concurrence with the contents.

a. If the evaluation is disputed, and the dispute is not resolved, the faculty member has the right to submit a written statement of rebuttal to the Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs that becomes part of the evaluation and is stored in the faculty member’s file in the Office of Human Resources.

8. Copies of the written evaluation must be provided to the faculty member and the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs.

9. Faculty shall have the right of access in order to respond to all material, including recommendations, synopses of discussions and the outcome of any vote used in annual evaluation. The faculty member shall also have the right to know the identity of anyone who reviews these materials and personnel file(s).