Performance Evaluation of Tenured Faculty (A-37.1)
Original Implementation: August 26, 1997
Last Revision: July 10, 2007
Purpose
The evaluation of faculty performance at Stephen F. Austin State University is a long standing practice. The Policy for Performance Evaluation of Tenured Faculty at Stephen F. Austin State University broadens the scope of previous university policies relating to faculty evaluation. This policy increases the available options for addressing the performance measures of tenured faculty. When obtained according to this policy, the results of the evaluation of a tenured faculty member may be used to support personnel decisions relating to commendations, suggestions for improvement, and when required, counseling of a faculty member whose evaluation shows the necessity for a professional development plan designed to address deficits in performance. A faculty member who satisfactorily meets the conditions of the professional development plan ends participation in the plan. If after a specified period of time the faculty member has not fulfilled the goals of the plan, dismissal procedures may be initiated in accord with university policy.
Academic Freedom and Responsibility
Stephen F. Austin State University regards academic freedom as critical to the maintenance of a positive scholastic atmosphere where free exchange of thought is encouraged, where faculty and students alike enjoy the opportunity to broaden their knowledge and where one's full potential can be realized. We therefore adhere to the statement on Academic Freedom and Academic Responsibility as articulated in Policy A-2.5
Evaluation & Criteria
For the purpose of assessing performance of tenured faculty, each academic unit has developed criteria for categories of performance, under the guidelines of Policy E-20A, Evaluation, Merit Pay, Promotion and Tenure. Tenured faculty in each department shall be evaluated annually for "teaching, performance/scholarly/creative activity, and service.” Peer review will be included within the evaluation process at least to the extent required by law.
When a faculty member receives a satisfactory administrative evaluation, the evaluation process is concluded for the year. The faculty member may then be considered for merit and/or promotion.
A single unsatisfactory administrative evaluation results in a consultation with the academic unit head. When a tenured faculty member receives two unsatisfactory annual evaluations within any three year period, a comprehensive professional review will be initiated. Regardless of the format used for performance evaluation of tenured faculty, all forms must include a check off as follows:
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
The evaluator must definitively check one of these blanks.
Professional Review & Development Plan
The purpose of the professional review is to identify and place on record the deficiencies in performance and to formulate a specific professional development plan aimed at addressing the deficiencies. The professional review begins with the academic unit director notifying the faculty member that he/she is subject to professional review. As part of the process the director will inform the faculty member of the procedures for the review. The faculty member can request that the review process be conducted by the academic department director or through peer review.
The reviewer(s) will consider the two previous unsatisfactory evaluations of the faculty member and recommend a specific development plan to the unit director within sixty days. The development plan will specify the deficiencies that are being addressed and what steps the faculty member needs to take to remediate the performance deficiencies according to a timeline. The development plan will be given final review by the unit director, the dean/librarian, and the faculty member. A final plan should be the collaborative effort of the three parties and should seek to benefit both the faculty member and the university. It is expected that all parties involved in the process of implementing a specific development plan will work in good faith. The annual evaluation process prescribed in Evaluation, Merit Pay, Promotion and Tenure, Policy E-20A, is suspended while a faculty member is under professional review.
All professional development plans are formed to address specific situations and may vary from one plan to another. However, each professional development plan should include the following: 1) specific deficiencies to be addressed in the plan; 2) specific objectives needed to remediate the named deficiencies; 3) a list of activities to be carried out to achieve the required outcomes of the professional development plan; 4) a schedule of deadlines for completing the activities; 5) criteria that will be used to assess progress; 6) a plan for periodic documented assessment to be conducted at least annually. Assessment documentation must include a statement of progress prepared by the faculty member and a formal written response by the evaluator(s). The university will provide reasonable support for the professional development plans within available resources. At the completion of the schedule stated in the plan, the unit director will make a final report to the faculty member, the review committee, and the dean/librarian. If the director and the dean/librarian agree that the faculty member has successfully completed the development plan, then the faculty member will be notified of the positive outcome. If the unit director and dean/librarian determine that the faculty member has failed to meet the goals of the professional development plan, dismissal proceedings may be initiated under Tenure, Policy E-50A. Failure to adhere to the professional development plan is considered grounds for dismissal if the deficiencies specified in the plan are of a sufficient magnitude to constitute cause for dismissal under university policy.
Appeal
At any point in the process a faculty member may enter an appeal under university grievance procedures if the faculty member feels that the policies are being unfairly applied. In congruence with Policy E-50A, Tenure, the burden of proof is on the university to demonstrate that an annual review of tenured faculty is unsatisfactory by departmental standards.
A faculty member subject to termination on the basis of evaluations conducted under this policy will receive specific written reasons for the terminations and have the opportunity for referral of the matter to a non-binding alternative dispute resolution process as described in Chapter 154, Civil Practices and Remedies Code. The opportunity for non-binding alternative dispute resolution will be available only after all internal appeal procedures are exhausted.
Cross Reference: Faculty Handbook, Academic Freedom and Academic Responsibility, A-2.5, Evaluation, Merit Pay, Promotion and Tenure, E-20A, and Tenure, E-50A, Education Code Section 51.942
Responsible for Implementation: Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs
Contact for Revision: Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs
Forms: None