Page Comparison

This instruction module produced by the VPA Office of Academic Affairs is intended for use by the department chairs and administrative staff.

Enclosed is a checklist that addresses each of the three types of annual performance reviews: 1.) for tenured faculty; 2.) for tenure-track faculty; and 3.) for full-time non tenure-track faculty (Professors of Practice and Teaching Professors). Performance reviews are an essential aspect of the University’s merit-based salary adjustment process, and are also an important means of providing feedback to faculty members. In the case of tenure-track faculty members, the annual review process follows very specific guidelines, and each annual review becomes part of the overall tenure and promotion process.

These guidelines are updated periodically to reflect any changes being implemented to the process. Please make sure that you are following the most current guidelines. If you have suggestions for improving these instructions, please feel free to share them with our staff.

Tenure-Track (TT) Faculty

For tenure-track faculty, the college utilizes the University’s Annual Report and Recommendation (ARR) form and process. A checklist for this process (pages 5-6) and a sample copy of the form (pages 9-10) are included in this module for your reference. If you do
not already have an electronic copy of the RR form, please contact VPA Office of Academic Affairs, and we will provide you with one.

Tenured Faculty

Each tenured faculty member should also be provided with a post-tenure performance review written by the department chair/director, based in the faculty member’s annual CV Update. The review letter represents the basis upon which the chair/director recommends annual salary increments for tenured faculty.

Criteria for Evaluating Performance

In the absence of specific departmental bylaws or written procedures that have been vetted by Faculty Council, these guidelines are provided:

1. The criteria for evaluating performance varies with the type of appointment a faculty member has, for instance:
   1. Tenured faculty – reviewed by the chair/director as part of annual merit raise decision. Criteria: teaching/advising, research/creative work, and service;
   2. Tenure-track faculty – reviewed by chair/director and department tenure committee. Criteria: teaching/advising, research/creative work, and service;
   3. Teaching Professors (non tenure-track faculty) – reviewed by chair/director and department tenure committee. Criteria: teaching/advising and service, but not research/creative work unless specifically negotiated as per SU Faculty Manual
   4. Professors of Practice (non tenure-track faculty – reviewed for teaching by chair/director and department tenure committee. Criteria: teaching/advising and service, but not research/creative work unless specifically negotiated as per SU Faculty Manual;
2. Discussion of performance should be limited to the criteria relevant to the type of appointment (see above).
3. Performance should be evaluated on the basis of available documentation in support of each of the relevant criteria during the period of the annual review (in most cases, the previous calendar year). Such documentation includes but is not limited to student course evaluations, peer evaluations of teaching, syllabi and course assignments, publications, exhibition record, service record, etc. (see guidelines in the college’s Policies and Procedures on Tenure, Promotion and Annual Contractual Renewal). Each academic unit is responsible for its own written “evidences” or criteria for promotion and tenure;
4. Any discussion outside the purview of these guidelines should be identified as not relevant or germane to the specific criteria under review.
5. Written feedback to the faculty member regarding his/her performance should be as detailed and as constructive as possible, including both strengths and weaknesses of the work presented. If deficiencies are identified, feedback should direct the faculty member in terms of what can or should be done to address those deficiencies.
6. For further details, especially with regard to review of tenure-track faculty, refer to the appropriate sections of the Policies and Procedures document.
7. While the chair/director bears a primary responsibility for adherence to these guidelines, all faculty members are responsible for identifying and correcting any breaches of protocol.

Annual Report and Recommendations (RRs) for Full-Time Tenure-Track Faculty

Department Chair/Director Checklist

1. The ARR is an annual performance review of faculty that determines merit increases in salary allocations. The ARR review also becomes part of the permanent record for future tenure and promotion decisions. Therefore, this review should address overall performance, including any concerns or issues in teaching, research/creative work and service. 
   1. All tenure-track faculty ARRs must be submitted to CVPA Office of Academic Affairs by the mid-February published due date. 
   2. Post-tenure or other non-tenure track full-time faculty reviews are due to our office later in February.
2. Department chair/director or support staff collects relevant review data (e.g. student course evaluations, syllabi, CV Update, etc.). This information is made available to members of the department tenure committee.
3. Department chair/director or staff completes information on the first page of the ARR. This includes faculty name, rank, and date of first appointment at SU. Section III (which addresses the status of the faculty’s appointment in the current academic year) must also be completed. If you do not have a record of the information needed to complete Section III, please contact our office for assistance.
4. The faculty ARR and accompanying CV Update forms the basis for the department chair/director and the department tenure committee’s evaluative comments.
5. Department tenure committee meets to discuss faculty member’s performance. 
   1. Chair/Director writes a formal letter to be attached to ARR form. (See attached template for details on writing evaluations.) 
   2. All members of the Tenure Committee should review the letter before the final version is submitted. 
   3. Chair/Director must sign Section IX.
6. The department chair/director invites each faculty member to discuss his or her evaluation.
   1. Faculty member must sign Section X.
   2. A file copy of the review letter is sent to the VPA Office of Academic Affairs for review by the Dean, and will then be forwarded to the Provost’s Office.

Annual Performance Review and Merit Salary Adjustments for Non Tenure-Track Faculty (Professors of Practice and Teaching Professors)

Department Chair/Director Checklist

The annual performance review of non tenure-tack faculty determines merit increases in salary allocations. This review should address overall performance, including any concerns or issues in teaching and service. Non-tenure track full-time faculty reviews are due to our
office in late February.

1. Department chair/director or support staff collects relevant review data (e.g. student course evaluations, syllabi, CV Update, etc.) for the period under review.
2. The CV Update and other relevant material forms the basis for the department chair/director’s evaluative comments.
3. The chair/director reviews these materials and writes a performance review letter focused specifically on teaching and service. (See template for details on writing evaluations.)
4. A copy of this letter is given to the appropriate faculty member.
5. The chair/director invites the faculty member to meet and review his or her performance prior to submitting salary recommendations to the dean.
6. The chair/director sends a copy of the performance review to CVPA Office of Academic Affairs for inclusion in the faculty member’s personnel file.
7. If the faculty member believes the chair/director’s review of his or her performance is biased or otherwise unfair, he or she may appeal the review to the department’s tenure and promotion committee. The appeal must be in writing to the chair within ten working days of his or her performance review meeting with the chair/director. The tenure and promotion committee should review the same materials that were submitted for the chair/director’s review, and reach an independent judgment of the faculty member’s performance. If this judgment differs significantly from the chair’s assessment, both reviews are submitted to the dean for final arbitration.

Regardless of whether you use the above template or your own process, the department chair/director must offer each faculty member the opportunity to meet individually to discuss his or her performance review.

Annual Performance Review and Merit Salary Adjustments for Tenured Faculty

Department Chair/Director Checklist

1. If your department has a standard process in place for reviewing tenured faculty, please submit a copy of the guidelines you use to our office. If your department does not have a defined process, please use the following template for the review process of tenured faculty.
2. Support staff prepares for the department chair/director copies of each tenured faculty member’s CV Update and course evaluations for the preceding calendar year (spring and fall semesters).
3. Department chair/director reviews these materials and writes a performance review letter focusing specifically on the three areas of evaluation: 
   1. teaching/advising; 
   2. research/creative work; and 
   3. service.
4. A copy of this letter is given to the appropriate faculty member.
5. The chair invites the faculty member to meet and review his or her performance prior to submitting salary recommendations to the dean.
6. The chair/director sends a copy of the performance review to CVPA Office of Academic Affairs for inclusion in the faculty member’s personnel file.
7. If the faculty member believes the chair’s review of his or her performance is biased or otherwise unfair, he or she may appeal the review to the department’s tenure and promotion committee. The appeal must be in writing to the chair/director within ten working days of his or her performance review meeting with the chair. The tenure and promotion committee should review the same materials that were submitted for the chair/director’s review, and reach an independent judgment of the faculty member’s performance. If this judgment differs significantly from the chair’s assessment, both reviews are submitted to the dean for final arbitration.

Regardless of whether you use the above template or your own process, the department chair/director must offer each tenured faculty member the opportunity to meet individually to discuss his or her performance review.