IV. Procedures for Faculty Evaluations

A. Objectives and Uses of Faculty Evaluations

Annual evaluations represent a Dean’s assessment of a faculty member’s performance during a calendar year in the context of three areas of effort outlined in the Faculty Handbook. Tenure/Promotion represents the assessment of a faculty member by a committee of tenured faculty members based on his/her long-term performance and potential for future performance at The University of Tampa in a number of areas as set forth in the Faculty Handbook (Approved March 1, 2013)

1. Objectives of Faculty Evaluations

   The objectives of faculty evaluations are: (1) to document the specific performance of each faculty member; (2) to foster communication between the evaluator and the faculty member being evaluated at the beginning of the evaluation process and throughout the period of evaluation; (3) to help the faculty member to appraise and improve his or her personal performance; (4) to assist the University to make decisions affecting the faculty member’s career within the University; (5) to document the faculty evaluation process to support accreditation purposes; and (6) to monitor and assess faculty contributions to the mission of the institution.

2. Uses of Faculty Evaluations

   Because faculty evaluations reflect a careful assessment of a faculty member’s performance and achievement, they are appropriate input for the following professional purposes. Institutional decisions in each of these areas must be consistent with the content of the annual faculty evaluations in order not to invite criticism of the University. Accordingly, faculty evaluations are used:

   1. To assist faculty members in evaluating their personal performance (to indicate strengths and weaknesses, to identify areas needing improvement, to make specific recommendations for performance improvement, and to document progress in areas previously identified as problematic).
   2. To help the institution’s administration to determine if faculty activities are consistent with the mission and objectives of the institution.
   3. To help the faculty member develop a professional plan for the coming evaluation period.
   4. To help determine renewal of annual contracts.
   5. To help determine merit for increases in remuneration.
   6. To help determine merit for promotion in rank.
   7. To help determine merit for the awarding of tenure
   8. To help determine justification for awarding of sabbaticals and leaves of absence.
   9. To help identify significant faculty achievement deserving of attention and recognition.
   10. To help determine the need for and to nurture faculty personal development (new technology, classroom approaches, scholarship, etc.)
   11. To allocate workload (e.g., number of student advisees, committee assignments and other service to the department, college and University, etc.)
   12. To help document and categorize faculty achievement and continuous improvement for accreditation purposes.
   13. To help determine justification for the termination of tenure.

       Faculty evaluations and the procedures described to accomplish such evaluations do not substitute for tenure and promotion processes already in-place within the University. Faculty evaluations should constitute additional (but necessary) inputs to the tenure and promotion processes. A thorough faculty evaluation is based on the self-evaluation materials provided by the faculty member. When a faculty member does not provide self-evaluation data, he/she waives the opportunity for that input into the on-going faculty evaluation process.

B. Timing of Faculty Evaluations

To allow sufficient lead time for each faculty member to prepare evaluation input, the due date(s) for all evaluation input will be clearly announced by the deans well in advance of the dates the materials are needed. All colleges will perform annual faculty evaluations for the same calendar year evaluation period (January through December). Colleges will accomplish faculty evaluations so that they are completed and results are available at the same time during any given year. Faculty evaluations will be completed annually for all continuing full‐time faculty members, regardless of academic rank or status with respect to tenure.

C. Areas of Faculty Performance Evaluated

The evaluation areas must be consistent with those presented in Chapter Four, Section III, of this Faculty Policies and Procedures Handbook and with the overall weighting rules described below. The evaluation submitted by the faculty member should address the activities described in his/her professional plan (see the next section for requirements for the professional plan), as well as other activities that the faculty member completed which were not included in the plan. The weights included in this evaluation shall be the same as either (1) the weights submitted in the original professional plan or (2) the modified weights submitted subsequently in writing to the evaluator.

An adjustable model for weighting each evaluation area has been adopted, as depicted below.

The range of weights for each evaluation area may be further restricted by general policy established by the deans and the unique desires of each faculty member to influence the importance placed on each evaluation area. However, administrative policy and individual desires may not arbitrarily remove any single evaluation area from consideration in a faculty member’s annual evaluation process. Thus, the weight applied to any evaluation area may not be set below the minimums displayed above for any faculty member without significant extenuating circumstances that are justified and documented in writing. Exceptional situations might include times when a faculty member: (1) participates in an exchange with another university; (2) receives a full‐time release from teaching to fulfill a research grant; (3) receives substantial release from one or more of the evaluation areas due to taking on significant administrative duties; (4) is on sabbatical; or (5) when the faculty member is a non‐full‐time adjunct who is not required to provide service in all the evaluation areas. Note that a reduction of a weight for an evaluation area implies only that the faculty member intends to place less emphasis on that evaluation area, not that the faculty member will be permitted to perform less satisfactorily in the evaluation area for activities actually performed.

D. Professional Plans

The faculty member shall provide a written professional plan to the evaluator at the start of the evaluation period. The professional plan shall include an outline of the proposed activities in each of the three evaluation areas for the coming year and must be included with the signed self‐evaluation submitted by the faculty member. The evaluator shall review and provide feedback on the professional plan with the faculty member in a timely manner, although the scope and breadth of this feedback shall be at the discretion of the evaluator. Neither the faculty member nor the evaluator shall interpret the professional plan as a binding contract. The purpose of the professional plan is (1) to assist in the planning of the principal focus of activities in each of the three evaluation areas for the coming year, (2) to document the intentions of the faculty member with respect to activities in each of the three evaluation areas, (3) to provide the evaluator the opportunity to offer constructive feedback to the faculty member early in the evaluation period, and (4) to establish the weights the faculty member is choosing to apply to each evaluation area. In response to changing opportunities throughout the evaluation period, revisions of the weightings in each of the evaluation areas in the original professional plan are permitted by submitting an alternative weighting scheme in writing to the evaluator before the end of the evaluation period. The faculty member may submit changes to the activities described in the professional plan in writing to the evaluator before the end of the evaluation period, and the evaluator may request a meeting with the faculty member to provide feedback on the amended professional plan.

E. Faculty Self-Evaluation Input

Each faculty member will provide the dean with self‐generated evaluation data that itemizes activities and achievements over the evaluation period. The dean will prescribe the format and content of the faculty self‐evaluation input as early as possible during the evaluation period and may provide forms for accomplishing the self‐evaluation. The faculty member should structure the self‐evaluation data in as concise a manner as possible to facilitate easy and consistent review by the dean. Faculty self‐evaluation data should consider all three evaluation areas and the criteria within each evaluation area as identified in Chapter Four, Section III, of the Faculty Policies and Procedures Handbook.

F. Performance Ratings

1. Ratings of Individual Evaluation Areas

   Ratings applied to each of the three evaluation areas should reflect an overall trend in performance and not just single, isolated events. The faculty member’s performance in each evaluation area must be indicated in the evaluation report and must be supported by a review of all relevant criteria comprising the evaluation area, as listed in Chapter Four, Section III, of this Faculty Policies and Procedures Handbook. Any evaluation area ranked by the evaluator as unsatisfactory (below standard, below average, or whatever wording is employed) must be sufficiently described and justified, and specific recommendations for improvement must be given in the faculty member’s evaluation report.

2. Overall Composite Performance Rating

   A faculty member’s evaluation reflects the complex, total performance of a faculty member in all three evaluation areas. Each faculty member must be provided an overall composite performance rating that combines each of the individual ratings for the three evaluation areas.

G. Annual Evaluation Reports

1. Written Evaluation Reports

   Evaluations will be written, and a copy will be provided to the faculty member being evaluated. The evaluator may also have an oral review of the evaluation with the faculty member. At the discretion of the evaluator, the oral review may precede the written evaluation report to ensure that all pertinent information is included in the written evaluation.

2. Dean’s Signature

   The signature of the dean must be placed on the evaluation report. The dean may include wording that implies that the evaluation was performed based only on information provided to him/her via the faculty member’s self‐evaluation data or that only limited validation of the information was performed (e.g., through discussions with the department chair, etc.). However, the dean’s signature indicates that the dean agrees with the content of the evaluation report.

3. Faculty Member’s Signature

   The signature of the faculty member must be placed on the evaluation report, indicating that the faculty member received the results of the evaluation. The faculty member’s signature does not imply agreement with the content of the evaluation. If the faculty member refuses to sign the evaluation report, the dean may add wording to that effect on the evaluation report.

4. Faculty Member Comments

   The faculty member may provide written comments concerning the evaluation within one week of the date the dean signs and presents the evaluation report to the faculty member. The faculty member’s comments must be attached to all copies of the evaluation report.

5. Evaluation File

   A specifically labeled “evaluation” file of written annual evaluation reports and all documentation relating to or used in the process of developing a faculty member’s annual evaluation must be maintained by the dean’s office. Except as needed for approved University decisions, faculty evaluations will remain personal information. Positive steps must be taken to preserve the privacy of information contained in faculty evaluation reports and related documentation in the “evaluation” file. The “evaluation” file must be open for review by the faculty member upon request and access to all contents of the faculty member’s “evaluation” file must be provided within a reasonable time period.