ÃÛèÖÊÓƵ

1. Purpose

This Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) is issued under University Policy 18.011 (Annual Faculty Evaluation) and provides the required procedures for conducting annual evaluations of all full-time faculty members.

2. Definitions

1. Academic unit. The administrative department, school, or equivalent that is responsible for conducting the annual evaluation.
2. Annual activity report. The formal written report prepared by faculty and submitted to their department chair, school director, or equivalent.
3. Annual evaluation. The formal, institutionally required process in which a faculty member’s performance over the previous academic year is reviewed and assessed in all assigned workload areas â‰¥5% of their total annual FTE.
4. Appeal. A formal request by a faculty member for reconsideration of an annual evaluation outcome, following the multi-step process outlined in this document.
5. Evaluation criteria. The broad categories of faculty responsibility (e.g., teaching, RSCA (research/scholarship/creative activity), service, clinical activity, and/or administration) used to judge the quality and effectiveness of performance.
6. Evaluators. An individual or group of individuals who assess performance metrics and assign performance ratings in the areas of teaching, RSCA, service, administrative duties (if applicable), and clinical duties (if applicable). Evaluators may include but are not limited to department chairs / school directors, program directors, or other designated faculty person(s) responsible for reviewing evidence of performance.
7. Faculty. For the purposes of this SOP, faculty are full-time employees (≥0.8 FTE) with faculty status at ÃÛèÖÊÓƵ. Faculty status designates an individual as primarily an officer of instruction and includes Tenure Track, Instructional, and Clinical faculty.
8. Performance metrics. The indicators used to evaluate contributions within each workload area. Performance metrics are expected to be:
   1. Standardized. Applied uniformly across faculty members using consistent definitions, rubrics, or procedures.
   2. Objective. Based on verifiable and observable evidence rather than personal opinion or bias.
   3. Measurable. Capable of being quantified or assessed against defined benchmarks or thresholds.
9. Performance ratings. The required three-level assessment of each workload area: exceeds performance expectations, meets performance expectations, or does not meet performance expectations.
10. Professional ethics. The expectation that faculty adhere to the ethical standards of their discipline, the policies of ÃÛèÖÊÓƵ, and broader professional obligations. Professional ethics encompass integrity in teaching, RSCA, service, and conduct, including compliance with laws, regulations, and institutional requirements.
11. Professional judgment. The reasoned and informed interpretation of evidence by experienced peers or administrators, guided by established standards and disciplinary context.
12. Projected workload (distribution) plan. The allocation of faculty responsibilities approved for the upcoming year, determined at the conclusion of the evaluation cycle.
13. Workload adjustment. Temporary or permanent changes to workload distribution.
14. Workload distribution. The proportional allocation of faculty responsibilities, expressed in percentages or workload units, across teaching, RSCA, service, clinical activity, and/or administration.

3. Guiding Principles

Annual evaluations at ÃÛèÖÊÓƵ are guided by the following principles:

1. Authority. Academic units are responsible for creating, maintaining, and updating evaluation criteria and performance metrics. Academic units are expected to update evaluation criteria and performance metrics at least once every five years. Evaluation criteria and performance metrics should be developed through a shared governance process, including input from faculty and approval by the department chair or school director and college dean.
2. Transparency. Whenever possible, evaluation criteria, performance metrics, and timelines should be communicated in writing at the start of the evaluation cycle. Reasonable transparency in the process is expected so that faculty are informed about how decisions are reached and what evidence is considered.
3. Clarity. Evaluation criteria should be stated in plain, consistent, and discipline-relevant language so that narratives and evidence may be understood by reviewers without discipline expertise. Clarity also applies to evaluators’ judgment, ensuring that written rationales are informative and directly connected to stated expectations.
4. Professional Ethics. Faculty are expected to adhere to professional standards of their discipline, institutional policies, and ethical obligations in teaching, RSCA, service, administrative responsibilities (if applicable), and clinical responsibilities (if applicable).
5. Professional Judgment. Evaluators are expected to interpret evidence in a reasoned and informed manner, guided by standards, metrics, and disciplinary context. Professional judgment should be used to ensure that evaluations consider both measurable outcomes and the significance of contributions to the university’s mission.
6. Accountability. Both faculty being evaluated and evaluators share responsibility for the integrity of the evaluation process. Faculty being evaluated are expected to submit annual activity reports that are truthful, concise, and effectively organized, providing clear evidence, both quantitative and qualitative, of contributions across workload areas. Evaluators are expected to document their judgments with written rationales, and the process should be subject to periodic review for fairness and bias. Faculty being evaluated and those providing the evaluation are required to meet deadlines, unless given prior approval.
7. Contextualization. Evaluations should reflect faculty workload distributions (University Policy 18.009), disciplinary norms, and appointment type. Evaluators should consider variations in faculty roles and the diverse ways faculty may contribute to the university mission.
8. Credit. When appropriate, both visible and less visible work should be recognized. This includes contributions that may be undervalued in traditional metrics yet are vital to the institutional mission, vision, values, and statement of commitment.
9. Flexibility. Evaluation criteria and performance metrics should be applied using professional judgment, allowing context to shape how evidence is interpreted rather than applied mechanically.
10. Agency. Faculty should be empowered to provide succinct, meaningful narrative contexts in their activity reports, giving them the ability to explain contributions, challenges, and impact in their own voice.
11. Representation. Committees should, wherever possible, include peers with similar appointment types. When that is not possible, evaluators are expected to demonstrate awareness of appointment differences and apply standards with fairness and sensitivity.
12. Academic Freedom. Evaluations cannot violate academic freedom and should respect the rights of faculty to determine the content of their teaching, RSCA and service within their disciplinary expertise.
13. Input. For faculty members with workload assignments in departments/schools, colleges, campuses, or other units outside the academic unit responsible for the annual evaluation, evaluators are expected to receive input from all units or roles that define their workload.

4. Workload and Evaluations

Evaluations should be based on each faculty member’s assigned workload distribution (instructional credit hours and credit hour equivalents). Adjustments to workload may be incorporated for leaves, reassignments, or overloads. Faculty may report work outside contract periods but should not be penalized for not working while off contract.

4.1 Annual Evaluation Areas

Faculty should be informed of their annual evaluation areas in advance of the evaluation cycle so that expectations are clear and aligned with their assigned workload. Evaluation areas must be communicated in ways that uphold the principles of transparency, clarity, consistency, timeliness, and fairness.

In every case, faculty must be evaluated in all workload areas where they have ≥5% responsibility, including:

1. Teaching (must include student evaluations; 25% of teaching area)
2. Research/Scholarship/Creative Activity (RSCA)
3. Service
4. Clinical Activity (if applicable)
5. Administration (if applicable)
6. Other Assigned Categories

4.2 Activity Report

Academic units are responsible for establishing and communicating content and formatting guidelines for annual activity reports. Guidelines should allow faculty to provide relevant evidence and context narratives across all assigned workload areas.

Faculty members are responsible for providing clear, concise information within established content and formatting guidelines. Faculty activity reports should establish their efforts and outcomes in each assigned workload area where they have ≥5% responsibility.

Annual evaluations should reflect the full scope of responsibilities, ensuring that contributions across assignments are documented and fairly assessed.

4.3 Performance Ratings

Faculty should be informed in advance of the performance metrics by which their work will be evaluated. These metrics should be designed and communicated in ways that uphold transparency, clarity, consistency, timeliness, and fairness, ensuring that faculty understand how evidence will be applied to determine evaluation outcomes. Performance metrics should align with workload expectations, college expectations, and disciplinary norms, providing a clear framework for assigning ratings.

In every case, faculty must be assessed in each applicable workload area using one of three ratings:

• Exceeds performance expectations,
• Meets performance expectations, or
• Does not meet performance expectations.

Evaluators are expected to use professional judgment, which must be informed by the workload area percentages, defined expectations relative to the percentage assigned for each workload area, and broader contextual factors.

4.4 Special Cases

Faculty members with workload assignments in departments/schools, colleges, campuses, or other units outside the academic unit responsible for the annual evaluation are expected to include activities that define the totality of their workload and are encouraged to provide relevant contextual information for reviewers and evaluators.

Faculty may also hold responsibilities or receive compensation outside the scope of the standard annual faculty evaluation. These may include overload assignments outside of the appointment period (such as summer teaching for faculty on academic-year contracts), augmentations to a faculty role (such as endowed chair stipends), or administrative appointments (such as service as a department chair or school director). Reviews or evaluations of such assignments are typically distinct from the annual evaluation conducted under this SOP. Although such reviews do not replace annual faculty evaluations, they may occur in parallel or follow separate timelines and processes.

5. Annual Timeline & Deadlines

The university evaluation cycle follows these fixed dates:

• Department peer review deadline - no later than the deadline specified by the college.
• Chair/Director evaluation deadline - no later than the deadline specified by the college
• October 27 – Dean evaluations due to the Office of the Provost.
• November 8 – Provost evaluations due back to deans.
• November 15 – Final evaluations delivered to faculty by department chairs, school directors, or equivalent.

6. Evaluation Process

Step 1: Faculty Submission

Faculty are expected to prepare and submit an annual activity report according to guidelines established by the academic unit (department/school, college, or campus). Materials must be submitted to department chairs, school directors, or equivalent no later than the deadline specified by the college.

Step 2: Peer Review

A departmental/school committee from the faculty member’s promotion/tenure home should review faculty submissions and provide a peer review of the annual activity report.

For faculty with workload assignments in departments/schools, colleges, campuses, or other units outside the faculty member’s promotion/tenure home, feedback should be collected from chairs/directors, deans, and/or work assignment supervisors. Provided feedback is advisory.

The peer review must be provided to the department chair or school director in writing no later than the deadline specified by the college. The peer review is advisory.

Step 3: Chair/Director Evaluation

A written evaluation must be prepared with performance ratings for each workload area. The evaluation must include an assessment of performance for each of the workload areas that the faculty member has spent at least ≥5% of their annual work time. For each workload area, the written evaluation must use the three-tier performance rating system and must provide a written rationale for each rating based on standardized, objective, and measurable performance metrics. The evaluation must also include a summary assessment of the performance areas using the three-tier performance rating system. At their discretion, the chair/director may request additional or clarifying information from the faculty member before assigning ratings.

A projected workload distribution plan for the following year must also be proposed. For faculty with workload assignments outside the faculty member’s department/school promotion and tenure home, the chair/director is expected to collaborate with appropriate administrators to determine the projected workload distribution plan.

Evaluations and the projected workload plan must be submitted in writing to college deans no later than the deadline specified by the college.

Step 4: Dean Evaluation

The dean (or designee) shall review all faculty evaluations and approve or disapprove the performance ratings and projected workload plan. At their discretion, deans may convene a college-level peer review committee to provide advisory feedback to the dean.

Chair/director evaluations and dean approval/disapproval must be forwarded to the Provost by October 27.

Step 5: Provost Oversight

The provost (or designee) is expected to review evaluations and projected workload plan for compliance and consistency. The provost is the final authority to determine final performance ratings and/or projected workload assignments in cases of disagreement between chair/director and dean.

Provost reviews must be returned to the dean by November 8.

Step 6: Final Delivery to Faculty

Deans are expected to communicate final evaluations to chairs/directors (or equivalent) and regional campuses (if applicable).

Chairs/directors must provide written evaluations to individual faculty on or before November 15.

7. Outcomes

In addition to annual evaluation rating for each performance area, an overall annual evaluation assessment, and projected workload plan, the outcomes of the evaluations may (but are not limited to):

• Inform merit pay considerations.
• Inform contract renewal or nonrenewal considerations.
• Lead to performance improvement agreements.
• Result in post-tenure reviews.
• Result in the reallocation of workload assignment.

8. Appeals

Faculty who disagrees with their annual evaluation and/or projected workload plan may pursue the following appeals process.

Step 1: Written Appeal

The faculty member may submit a written appeal to their department chair, school director, or equivalent administrator within ten (10) business days. Appeals shall be less than five written pages (single-spaced, 12-point font). Reasons for an appeal include violations of due process, inadequate consideration, or academic freedom.

Step 2: Chair/Director Review

At their discretion, the chair or director may meet with the faculty member. If the appeal is about chair/director evaluation, the chair/director must provide a written response within ten (10) business days. If the appeal is only for the dean or provost evaluation, the chair/director will forward the appeal to the dean.

If the appeal is resolved between the chair/director and the faculty member, the chair/director shall forward the proposed resolution to the Dean for approval/disapproval. If approved by the Dean, the Dean shall forward to the Provost for review.

Step 3: Dean Review

If the faculty member remains dissatisfied after the Chair/Director Review, the faculty member may appeal to the college dean within ten (10) business days of receiving the chair’s or director’s written response.

The dean is expected to review the annual activity report, the appeal, and the chair/director response (if applicable). At their discretion, the dean may meet with the faculty member and chair/director. The dean must issue a written response within fifteen (15) business days.

If the appeal is resolved during the dean review, the dean shall forward the proposed resolution to the dean shall forward to the Provost for review.

Step 4: Provost Review

If the faculty member remains dissatisfied after the Chair/Director Review and the Dean Review, the faculty member may appeal to the Provost within ten (10) business days of receiving the dean’s written response.

The Provost is expected to review the annual activity report, the appeal, the chair/director response (if applicable), and the dean response. At their discretion, the Provost (or designee) may meet with the faculty member, chair/director, or dean. The Provost must issue a written response within 15 business days.

Step 5: Faculty Review Committee

If the faculty member remains dissatisfied, they may request review by a Faculty Review Committee within 10 business days of the Provost written response. The committee will be composed of at least seven full-time faculty members appointed by the Provost (or designee), in consultation with the Chairs & Directors Council.

The committee is expected to review the faculty activity report, written evaluations, and appeal responses at each prior level. At their discretion, the committee may request clarifications from the faculty member, chair/director, dean, or Provost.

The committee is responsible for determining if there have been violations of due process, inadequate consideration, or academic freedom. If violations are identified, the committee is charged with recommending correction actions to the Provost. The committee should not comment on the merits of the activity report or use their judgment to determine different evaluation ratings.

The committee must provide a written recommendation to the Provost within 20 business days. This recommendation is advisory and will be forwarded to the Provost.

Step 6: Final Decision

Informed by the Faculty Review Committee recommendation(s), the Provost is expected to issue a final written decision within 15 business days.

9. Recordkeeping

All annual evaluation documents (including faculty annual activity report submissions, peer review feedback, chair/director evaluations, dean evaluations, provost decisions, and workload distributions) are expected to be maintained in the faculty member’s official personnel file. Appeal-related records (including faculty statements, responses, and written decisions at each stage) should also be retained in the same file.

Records related to separate evaluations or reviews—such as overload assignments, appointment augmentations like endowed chairs, or administrative appointments—should be maintained in accordance with the relevant policies and procedures and kept distinct from the annual evaluation file.

All records should be preserved in compliance with university and state public records requirements.

Revision History

• November 12, 2025 – Initial Draft