4A FACULTY EVALUATION MODEL

4A-1 SECTION 1. GENERAL INFORMATION AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES

This Faculty Evaluation Model has the following sections: principles and criteria upon which faculty evaluations are based (Section 4A-2); principles informing the roles of different parties in the faculty evaluation (Sections 4A-3 and 4A-4); evaluation procedures for each type of evaluation (Sections 4A-5 to 4A-11); and evaluation forms (Figures 4A.1 to 4A.10) and Calendars of Events for each type of evaluation (Tables 1-3).

This model covers evaluations of full-time faculty members and evaluations by faculty members of department chairs, but does not cover administrators or academic support personnel even though they may hold faculty rank. Full-time teaching faculty are those who teach at least nine semesters hours. Some faculty who would normally be considered full-time but who have been reassigned to other non-teaching duties are to adjust the weights in their self-evaluations to account for those other responsibilities. Performance in such non-teaching functions will be evaluated by whomever the faculty member reports to for those responsibilities.

Full-time faculty receive annual evaluations (Section 4A-7), as well as evaluations for promotion and/or tenure (Section 4A-8) and for first and/or second year contract renewal and advisory evaluations (Section 4A-9). Procedures for non-tenure-track faculty are also described (Section 4A-10). Faculty members are evaluated in three areas (teaching, scholarship, and service) to which flexible area weights are assigned (Section 4A-2). Overall evaluation is recorded on standard evaluation forms (Figures 4A.1, 4A.3, 4A.4), and measured in accordance with a four-category Standard Performance Rating Scale (Figure 4A.6). Overall performance ratings become the basis for annual recommendations for merit salary increases (Figure 4A.5), as well as for tenure, promotion, or contract renewal recommendations (Figure 4A.3). In this Model, the phrase "major evaluations" denotes evaluations for tenure, promotion, or contract renewal.

Librarians with faculty rank are evaluated under the provisions of the Faculty Handbook, Section 3-10, Policy Statement on Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure of Professional Librarians. Evaluation of library services, including performance of library personnel, is delegated to the Academic Support Services Sub-Committee of the Faculty Senate.

Faculty members seeking tenure and/or promotion are advised to consult also Section 3-12, pp. 3-35 to 3-37, of the Faculty Handbook, which outlines University-wide criteria for tenure and promotion.

The underlying philosophy of this Model is that evaluation of faculty performance is a complex process which should promote a reasonable degree of equity and consistency for all individuals and academic departments. The Model should be implemented in a way that enhances faculty development and promotes faculty achievement and satisfaction, while also promoting the mission of The University of North Carolina at Pembroke.

As a means to help insure fairness, in all formal evaluations, a faculty member has the right to submit a rebuttal pertaining to any aspects of reports submitted by department chairs or Peer Evaluation Committees.

All phases of evaluation are to be guided by the principles set forth in Sections 4A-1 to 4A-3. Individual faculty members have latitude in the roles they assume as they fulfill their responsibilities to the University and its mission. The Model encourages flexibility in applying the principles and criteria for each area of faculty evaluation (Section 4A-2), allowing for the varying needs and traditions of different academic disciplines. The model also specifies procedures (Sections 4A-5 to 4A-11) that promote consistency in evaluation. This evaluation model will be reviewed periodically by the Faculty Evaluation Review Committee and amended as the Faculty Senate deems appropriate.

While this Model attempts to be reasonably comprehensive with respect to policies and procedures, faculty members should also be familiar with other sections of the Faculty Handbook concerning tenure and promotion criteria (Section 3-12), grievance procedures (Section 4-1.3), and hearing procedures (due process: Section 3-4). Further, employment at the University and conduct as a faculty member are governed by sections of The Code of the University of North Carolina (copies of which are available from department chairs and the Office for Academic Affairs); faculty members should consult that document as well as the Faculty Handbook.

4A-2 SECTION 2. FACULTY EVALUATION: PRINCIPLES AND CRITERIA

4A-2.1 Areas of Faculty Evaluation

For purposes of evaluation, all faculty responsibilities are divided among three general areas as specified in the opening sentence of The University of North Carolina at Pembroke Mission Statement in the University Catalog: "The University of North Carolina at Pembroke, as a constituent institution of the University of North Carolina, is committed to academic excellence in a balanced program of teaching, research, and service." Some activities, such as grant-related work, may fall into several areas and should be evaluated accordingly.

Throughout Section 4A-2, the term "knowledge" is used as a broad summary term intended to include factual information, epistemological and empirical principles, artistic technique, empirical and interpretive methodologies, reasoning skills, and so forth.

4A-2.2 Evaluation of Teaching

4A-2.3 Evaluation of Scholarship

4A-2.4 Evaluation of Service

4A-3 SECTION 3. PARTICIPANTS IN FACULTY EVALUATION: PRINCIPLES AND ROLES

All evaluators should be guided by the traditions of academic freedom. Also, all evaluators are required to maintain confidentiality about all the information and decisions involved, except for disclosures required by their formal reporting responsibilities.

4A-3.1 The Faculty Member Being Evaluated

The main kinds of evaluations of faculty members, which are explained in more detail in Section 4A-5, are as follows. Each full-time faculty member, even a faculty member not tenured or in a tenure-track position, receives annual evaluations. In addition, faculty members in tenure-track positions receive evaluations for tenure and for each promotion. Untenured tenure-track faculty receive first and/or second year evaluations and may receive advisory evaluations. Non-tenure-track faculty are evaluated annually and in their sixth year of employment (Section 4A-10).

Because of the complexity and specialized nature of academic work, a faculty member's self-evaluation should be a primary source of information about the goals, methods, and degree of success associated with his or her performance. Faculty members are responsible for representing their work accurately and providing appropriate documentation for their claims (see Section 4A-2).

Faculty members should have considerable freedom to allocate their time and effort in ways that use their competencies most productively, while still fulfilling their responsibilities to the University. To allow individual choices to play a meaningful role in self-evaluation, the faculty member indicates a set of annual area weights when completing a Self-Evaluation Report (see Figure 4A.1). These weights are taken into account by evaluators in developing overall performance evaluations.

In all formal evaluations, the candidate has the right to submit a rebuttal pertaining to any aspects of reports submitted by the department chair or the Peer Evaluation Committee.

4A-3.2 Students

Students who take a faculty member's courses play a prominent role in evaluating the faculty member's teaching. They submit information on a Student Evaluation of Instruction Form (Figure 4A.4), from which summaries are compiled for each course, consisting of numerical data as well as all student comments. Student evaluations must be administered in a manner that conveys their importance and protects students' sense of freedom to give candid evaluations. Students should also have significant input in developing or selecting the instruments used to gather their evaluations of teaching.

Student evaluations by themselves do not provide sufficient information to validly judge a faculty member's performance as a teacher; hence, evaluation of teaching effectiveness involves a variety of types of documentation (see Section 4A-2.2. C.)

4A-3.3 The Department Chair

The department chair is responsible for (a) coordinating the evaluation process at the departmental level, (b) providing the primary administrative evaluation of the faculty member's performance, and (c) promoting the professional growth of the department's faculty. In years prior to tenure and/or promotion decisions, the department chair is strongly encouraged to provide each faculty member with constructive, timely guidance about the means by which any deficiencies can be corrected.

A Department Chair's Evaluation Report includes assigning performance ratings, recommending merit salary increases in annual evaluations, and reporting on classroom observation for major evaluations. In preparing the Department Chair's Evaluation Report for a faculty member, a chair should use the Format for Evaluation Reports (Figure 4A.1) and be guided by the Standard Performance Rating Scale (Figure 4A.6). Serious consideration must be given to the area weights on the faculty member's Self-Evaluation Report(s).

4A-3.4 The Peer Evaluation Committee

The Peer Evaluation Committee is responsible for preparing and submitting a Peer Evaluation Report in decisions involving tenure and/or promotion, as well as in first year and other contract renewal evaluations (see Section 4A-8.3 A. and 4A-8.4). The report is based on documentation submitted by the faculty member being evaluated, classroom observations, and external review if called for. The Peer Evaluation Committee is responsible for gathering appropriate information, assessing its implications, and formulating a coherent evaluation of the faculty member's performance. To retain the special value of their perspective, Committeeís evaluation should be independent of the department chair's evaluation.

In preparing the Peer Evaluation Report for a faculty member, a Peer Evaluation Committee should use the Format for Evaluation Reports (Figure 4A.1) and be guided by the Standard Performance Rating Scale (Figure 4A.6). Serious consideration must be given to the area weights on the faculty member's Self-Evaluation Report(s).

4A-3.5 The Promotion and Tenure Committee

The Promotion and Tenure Committee advises the Provost & Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs on matters of promotion and tenure. This University wide committee attempts to ensure a fair and consistent application of promotion and tenure standards. The responsibilities of the Promotion and Tenure Committee are to (a) gather the reports of the department chair and Peer Evaluation Committee, (b) request any additional information that it deems necessary, (c) examine all facets of the application, and (d) reach an equitable final decision. Responsibilities in the tenure and/or promotion process are discussed below (Section 4A-8.5).

4A-3.6 The Faculty Evaluation Review Committee

The Faculty Evaluation Review Committee is responsible for representing the norms and values of the general faculty in all matters related to the Faculty Evaluation Model.

When the current provisions of the Faculty Evaluation Model do not provide adequate instruction on a specific procedural matter, the party involved may request an ad hoc ruling from the Faculty Evaluation Review Committee. This ruling is binding unless superseded by action from the full Senate within thirty days. Any ruling made in a given academic year shall apply to all similar cases in that year.

4A-3.7 The Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs

The Provost & Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs is responsible for making recommendations about a faculty member's salary increases, merit salary increases, tenure, promotion, and contract renewal to the Chancellor, based on recommendations and materials submitted by the department chair and other evaluators. The Provost & Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs is also responsible for establishing and maintaining a general climate conducive to successful implementation of the Faculty Evaluation Model and for fostering conditions in which high levels of faculty achievement can occur.

4A-3.8 The Chancellor

As Chief Executive Officer of the University, the Chancellor is responsible for facilitating the work of the Provost & Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and others in implementing the Faculty Evaluation Model and promoting faculty achievement. The Chancellor receives, reviews, and acts upon all evaluative materials provided by the Provost & Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. After reviewing the materials produced by the final evaluation process, the Chancellor takes actions regarding salary and employment.

4A-4 SECTION 4. THE FACULTY'S EVALUATION OF UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATION

The faculty has a significant role in contributing to the general direction of the University, and effective administration of the University depends on a healthy dialog between the faculty and the administration. Therefore, the faculty shall periodically submit to the Chancellor formal evaluations of administrators and ongoing administrative processes.

4A-5 SECTION 5. PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATING FACULTY: GENERAL

CONSIDERATIONS

The evaluation procedures described in this section are designed to attain the following objectives:

New faculty members should be informed of the evaluation procedures during their orientation to the University and should be encouraged to familiarize themselves with the Faculty Evaluation Model.

4A-5.1 Annual Evaluation

The annual evaluation provides the basis for merit salary increases and ongoing administrative supervision of faculty. It consists of a Self-Evaluation Report, Student Evaluation Report, Chairís Evaluation Report, an Annual Merit Salary Increase Recommendation, and a recommendation by the Provost & Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. Every full-time faculty member is evaluated annually. Faculty members on leave of absence are not evaluated, and part-time faculty are evaluated by department chairs using procedures developed by the Provost & Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.

Procedures are explained in Section 4A-7 and the Calendar of Events is shown in Table 1. Annual evaluation reports from previous years are used in evaluations for contract renewal, tenure, and promotion.

4A-5.2 Evaluation for Tenure and/or Promotion

Evaluations for decisions concerning tenure and/or promotion of tenure-track faculty include a Self-Evaluation Report, Student Evaluation Report, current-year Chairís Evaluation Report (with Tenure, Promotion, and Renewal Form), prior-year Chairís Evaluation Reports, Peer EvaluationReport (with Tenure, Promotion, and Renewal Form), Tenure and Promotion Evaluation Report (with Tenure, Promotion, and Renewal Form), and a recommendation by the Provost & Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.

All Assistant and Associate Professors are evaluated for tenure and/or promotion no later than their sixth year of employment at the University. All faculty applying for promotion receive a major evaluation. Non-tenure track faculty receive a major evaluation in their sixth year of employment (Section 4A-10). Procedures are explained in Section 4A-8 and the Calendar of Events is shown in Table 2.

A faculty member being considered for tenure or promotion who is a member of the Promotion and Tenure Committee must resign that membership by September 21, if he or she is to be considered for a promotion in that academic year. A faculty member whose application for promotion has been denied must wait two years before reapplying.

4A-5.3 First and/or Second Year Evaluation for Contract Renewal and Advisory Evaluations

All faculty, including non-tenure-track faculty, receive a major evaluation in their first year of employment at the University. In subsequent years, a major evaluation for untenured faculty is optional at the discretion of the faculty member or department chair. Peer evaluations of visiting faculty are at the option of the department chair and the Provost & Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.

Evaluations after the second year (but prior to tenure and/or promotion evaluation) may be initiated by a tenure-track faculty member or by his/her chair anytime during the tenure-track process and will be advisory in nature.

For additional information and procedures see Section 4A-9 and the Calendar of Events in Table 3.

4A-6 SECTION 6. OPTIONAL DEPARTMENTAL EVALUATION PLAN

The general objectives of the Faculty Evaluation Model (Sections 4A-1 to 4A-4) may be attained by other methods. Departments that prefer to modify criteria or procedures are strongly encouraged to develop a Departmental Evaluation Plan. That plan may provide specific criteria as supplements to the Principles and Criteria (Section 4A-2), and may substitute alternatives for the Format for Evaluation Reports (Figure 4A.1), the Student Evaluation of Instruction Form (Figure 4A.4), and the Department Chair Evaluation Form (Figure 4A.7). In developing any alternative Student Evaluation of Instruction Form, a department should obtain input from its students.

An acceptable plan must (a) adhere to the guiding principles and procedural objectives in this document; (b) conform to all deadlines established herein; (c) produce a final output that can be expressed in terms of the Annual Merit Salary Increase Recommendation Form (Figure 4A.5) and the Tenure, Promotion, and Renewal Form (Figure 4A.3); (d) be approved by a two-thirds majority of the department's full-time faculty; and (e) be approved by the Faculty Senate. Departmental plans are required to be reasonably consistent across time so that no individualís evaluation is affected by temporary, arbitrary, or radical changes. The Office for Academic Affairs will maintain a file of all approved departmental plans for examination by all faculty members.

4A-7 SECTION 7. PROCEDURES FOR ANNUAL EVALUATION

Every faculty member is evaluated every academic year. The annual evaluation includes a(n): (1) Self-Evaluation Report, (2) Student Evaluation Report, (3) Chairís Evaluation Report, (4) Annual Merit Salary Increase Recommendation, and (4) recommendation of the Provost & Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. Procedures for compiling these reports are listed below. The Calendar of Events for Annual Evaluations appears in Table 1.

4A-7.1 Faculty Self-Evaluation Report

In the Self-Evaluation Report, the faculty member must discuss his or her teaching, scholarship, and service. In addition, each component is assigned an area weight reflective of the time, effort, and accomplishments in each area. The following sections present guidelines to assist the faculty member in compiling the Self-Evaluation report. These guidelines are intended as a general overview of the specific information that should appear in a faculty member's Self-Evaluation Report both in terms of area weights and subheadings (see Figure 4.1.).

4A-7.2 Student Evaluations of Instruction

Students evaluate the teaching of all teaching faculty. Results are summarized in a Student Evaluation Report. In the following sections, the procedures, format, and reporting of these student evaluations are discussed.

4A-7.3 Annual Chair's Evaluation Report

As specified in Section 4A-5, each department chair must compile an annual Chairís Evaluation Report for each faculty member in the department. This report consists of the (a) faculty memberís Self-Evaluation Report, (b) Student Evaluation Report, (c) chairís narrative evaluation, and (d) Annual Merit Salary Increase Recommendation Form. In the following sections, the Chair's Evaluation Report and the Annual Merit Salary Increase Recommendation Form are discussed.

Overall Performance Rating

Distinguished
Very Good
Adequate
Deficient

Recommended Merit Salary Increase

High
Medium
Low
No Increase

4A-8 SECTION 8. PROCEDURES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE OF TENURE-TRACK FACULTY

All Assistant and Associate Professors receive a tenure and/or promotion evaluation no later than their sixth year of employment at the University. In the following sections, the tenure and/or promotion evaluation procedures and documents are discussed. See Section 4A-5 B and Tables 2 and 3 for descriptions and Calendars of Events for these evaluations.

Faculty members seeking tenure and/or promotion also should consult Section 3-12, of the Faculty Handbook, which outlines University-wide criteria for tenure and/or promotion.

4A-8.1 Notification and Scheduling of Tenure and Promotion Evaluations

The department chair is responsible for ascertaining when mandatory tenure and/or promotion evaluations are due. The department chair is responsible for announcing these occasions by September 7, in letters to the candidate, the Provost & Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, and the Promotion and Tenure Committee. The letter to the candidate must indicate that the Self-Evaluation Report, Student Evaluation Reports, Peer Evaluation Committee Nomination Form, and supporting materials are due by September 21.

Although there are established eligibility dates for faculty members applying for tenure and promotion (Faculty Handbook, Section 3-3), a faculty member may request consideration for tenure and/or promotion earlier than these dates. To exercise this option, a faculty member must petition in writing to the department chair and the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs by August 21 of the current academic year. Otherwise, evaluation for promotion and tenure will occur in accordance with established dates. A faculty member who has been denied a promotion must wait two years before reapplying.

4A-8.2 Responsibilities of the Faculty Member in Relation to Tenure and Promotion

A faculty member being evaluated for promotion or tenure must submit the documentation listed below to the department chair by September 21. Other possible actions are also listed.

4A-8.3 Responsibilities of Department Chairs in Relation to Tenure and Promotion Evaluations

As discussed in Section 4A-8.1, department chairs are responsible for notifying a faculty member by September 7 of the evaluation year, in writing, that a mandatory major evaluation is due. Additionally, department chairs are responsible for establishing Peer Evaluation Committees, conducting classroom observations, compiling and submitting Student Evaluation Reports, preparing and submitting Chair's Evaluation Reports for tenure and/or promotion decisions, and completing the Tenure, Promotion, and Renewal Forms (Figure 4A.3).

4A-8.4 Responsibilities of the Peer Evaluation Committee

The requirements for membership on a Peer Evaluation Committee are described in Section 4A-8.2 A and Section 4A-8.3 A; see also the Peer Evaluation Committee Form (Figure 4A.2).

Under the guidance of its chair, the Peer Evaluation Committee is charged with preparing and submitting a Peer Evaluation Report based on the following items: documentation submitted by the faculty member undergoing evaluation for tenure and/or promotion, classroom observations, and external review if necessary.

4A-8.5 Responsibilities of the Promotion and Tenure Committee

The responsibilities of the Promotion and Tenure Committee are to receive from the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs the Chairís Evaluation Report and the Peer Evaluation Report (plus any rebuttals of these), request any additional information that it deems necessary, examine all facets of the application, reach an equitable final decision, prepare a report on the candidate, and complete a Tenure, Promotion, and Renewal Form (Figure 4A.3).

4A-8.6 Responsibilities of the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs in Relation to Promotion and Tenure

The Provost & Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs shall receive and distribute all materials from the department chair, Peer Evaluation Committee, Promotion and Tenure Committee, and the faculty member being evaluated. Upon receipt of the Tenure and Promotion Report, the Provost & Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs considers all recommendations and supporting materials. Further consultations with the candidate or any of the participants in the evaluation process may be conducted.

The Provost & Vice Chancellor's final recommendation to the Chancellor shall be accompanied by all of the evaluation materials received. The Provost & Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs is responsible for informing the candidate of the final action taken by the Chancellor, the vote of the Promotion and Tenure Committee, and any additional details that are deemed beneficial to a consistent and equitable evaluation process.

4A-8.7 Responsibilities of the Chancellor in Relation to Promotion and Tenure

The Chancellor shall receive, review, and act upon all evaluative materials provided by the Provost & Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. After reviewing the materials produced by the final evaluation process, the Chancellor shall take actions regarding salary and employment.

4A-9 SECTION 9. PROCEDURES FOR FIRST OR SECOND YEAR CONTRACT RENEWAL AND FOR ADVISORY EVALUATIONS OF UNTENURED TENURE-TRACK FACULTY

All untenured tenure-track faculty should receive a comprehensive evaluation during their first year of employment at the University. In subsequent years, such an evaluation for untenured tenure-track faculty is optional at the discretion of the faculty member or department chair. These evaluations, if initiated by the department chair, may be for cause or, at the discretion of either the faculty member or chair, may be advisory in nature.

4A-9.1 First-year Contract Renewal Evaluations

Except that they occur at times relatively earlier in the faculty memberís employment at the University (see Table 3 for the Calendar of Events), the procedures for these evaluations generally follow the procedures specified for tenure and/or promotion. Notification of the faculty member and the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs occurs by September 7 (no notification of the Promotion and Tenure Committee is needed, since they will not review the faculty memberís materials). The faculty member presents required documents to the department chair by September 21. The department chair appoints a Peer Evaluation Committee by October 7; procedures to be followed by the Peer Evaluation Committee are shown in Section 4A-8.4.

Although the awkwardness of doing so early is completely apparent, first-year faculty members nevertheless are to collect student evaluations of their courses, generally following theprocedures shown in Section 4A-7.2. Classroom observations by the department chair and by members of the Peer Evaluation Committee, therefore, are even more important to the evaluation process.

The department chair completes a Chairís Evaluation Report as described in Section 4A-8.3 B, and submits the report as described in Section 4A-8.3 C. The Peer Evaluation Committee (if convened) submits a Peer Evaluation Report (see Section 4A-8.4) as well. Note, however, that this report is due to the Office for Academic Affairs by January 15, somewhat later than the reporting date for tenure and/or promotion purposes. The later date allows the faculty member to review the report, including the Student Evaluation Report, after the fall semester grades have been submitted, while still allowing time for review of the report(s) by the University administration.

The Provost & Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs reviews all the evaluative materials and recommends to the Chancellor whether or not to reappoint the candidate. The Chancellor makes the final decision on reappointment. Conditions governing nonreappointment are listed in the Faculty Handbook, Section 3-5, pp. 3-10 to 3-11; note that the faculty memberís competence is not the only factor considered in reappointment decision. The Code of the University of North Carolina (see the excerpt in the Faculty Handbook, pp 3-43 to 3-45) specifies that, should the faculty member not be reappointed, he or she is to be notified not less than 90 days before the current contract expires (typically mid-May).

4A-9.2 Advisory Evaluations

Advisory evaluations may be initiated by a tenure-track faculty member or by his/her department chair anytime during the tenure-track process. Such evaluations are proactive steps to help faculty members improve performance and become more tenurable. The department chair may appoint a Peer Evaluation Committee as part of advisory evaluations. If advisory evaluations are conducted, the committee should identify aspects of the faculty member's performance that may present problems when a tenure decision is due. Advisory evaluations have no formal consequences for decisions about contract renewal, tenure, or promotion.

4A-10 SECTION 10. PROCEDURES FOR SPECIAL EVALUATIONS OF NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY

Non-tenure-track faculty members will be evaluated annually just as all other faculty members are.

In addition, in their sixth year of employment at The University of North Carolina at Pembroke, continuing non-tenure-track faculty will receive a major formal evaluation within their department, including evaluation by a Peer Evaluation Committee, as part of their annual evaluation for that year. The intent of this procedure is to provide a formal evaluation that parallels that of tenure-track faculty members who are being proposed for tenure.

Non-tenure-track faculty receive a major advisory evaluation at the discretion of the faculty member or department chair. Peer evaluations for non-tenure-track faculty (including visiting faculty) may be included in this process at the option of the department chair and the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.

[Academic Affairs HomePage] [Return to Table of Contents]

Last updated: August 18, 1997