Skip Navigation

Best Practices for Performance Review 98

Best Practices for Performance Review 98


1. The performance review system must meet the 'Criteria and Procedures forEvaluation' (4.8.10) of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools whichstipulate that: (1) an institution must conduct periodic evaluations of the performance ofindividual faculty members; (2) the evaluation must include a statement of the criteriaagainst which the performance of each faculty member will be measured; (3) the criteriamust be consistent with the purpose and goals of the institution and be made known to allconcerned; and (4) the institution must demonstrate that it uses the results of thisevaluation for improvement of the faculty and its educational program.

2. The performance review system should be both formative (designed to be a supportiveprocess that promotes self-improvement) and summative (assesses and judges performance).

3. The performance review system process and criteria should be explained to new hires.

4. All faculty, including tenured faculty at all ranks, are reviewed annually andreceive a written performance evaluation. In this way, for those institutions with atenure system, the performance review system should not pose a threat to the tenure systembut extends and enlarges it.

5. The performance review system should have been developed jointly by the faculty andadministrators of an institution.

6. The performance review system should allow for discipline-specific components.

7. The performance review system should provide opportunities for reflection, feedback,and professional growth whose goal   is to enhance instruction at theinstitution.

8. The performance review system should include written performance evaluation data from four sources:

a. Annually, instruction and course evaluation forms completed anonymously by students through a standardized institutional process and submitted for each course (not section) taught;

b. Annually, evaluation which includes assessments from the department chair and/or dean;

c. At least every three years, for tenure track faculty, internal peer evaluations, i.e., evaluation of faculty by their peers within the institution of higher education;

d. At least every six years, for tenured tenure track faculty, input from peers external to the department and/or institution as appropriate to the role and function of each faculty member. External evaluators to the institution include national peers from the same field of expertise from other institutions of higher education, professional organizations and societies, federal agencies, etc. Specialized national accreditations and the CHE program reviews, which include external reviewers' assessments, could be incorporated into the external peer review component, where appropriate.
9. At an institutional level, the performance review system must include the following criteria as appropriate to the institution's mission:

- instruction/teaching
- advisement and mentoring of students
- graduate student supervision
- supervision of other students (teaching assistants, independent study students)
- course/curriculum development
- research/creative activities
- activities which support the economic development of the region or the State publications
- service to department
- service to institution
- service to community
- participation in professional organizations/associations
- honors, awards, and recognitions
- self-evaluation
- participation in faculty development activities/programs

10. The results of each performance review, including post-tenure review, must be used by the institution as part of its faculty reward system and faculty development system, and the system should include a plan for development when deficiencies are indicated in the review. Specifically:

a. when an instructor (in the Tech system) or untenured faculty member receives an overall rating of unsatisfactory on the annual performance review, the faculty member may be subject to non-reappointment;

b. when an instructor (in the Tech system) or tenured faculty member receives an overall rating of unsatisfactory on the annual performance review, the faculty member is immediately subject to a development process, developed by the specific unit, whose goal is to restore satisfactory performance. The development process will include a written plan with performance goals in deficient areas, with appropriate student and peer evaluation of performance.

c. when an instructor (in the Tech system) or a tenured faculty member fails to make substantial progress towards the performance goals at the time of the next annual review or fails to meet the performance goals specified in the development plan within a specified period, that faculty member will be subject to dismissal (in the Tech system) or revocation of tenure for habitual neglect of duty under the terms of the senior institution's faculty manual.

11. The institution should develop an appeals procedure for those faculty who do notagree with the results of the performance evaluation and/or the resulting recommendationsor requirements for improvement.