Annual Reviews of Faculty

Overview

Faculty are required to be reviewed annually. The process is conducted at the department/academic unit level; however, the college requests an annual reporting of the overall review ratings from each unit for three main reasons:

• To assist with college-wide compliance;
• To have awareness of faculty performance at the deans’ level;
• To have on file in college (helps with Provost reporting requests and continuity of department records).

This page describes the annual review reporting process; for details on conducting the annual reviews, please refer to the Provost Guidelines and individual department/academic unit governance documents (or by-laws).

Definitions:

Annual Reviews: ARE faculty reviews specified in HOP 2-2151 and the Provost Guidelines 

                              ARE NOT: FARs [Faculty Activity Reports]; or

                                                Faculty Merit Reviews [see FAQ below]

BC/EC: Department's faculty governing body: either Budget Council (BC), Extended Budget Council (EBC), or Executive Committee (EC).

Chair: Either the Chair or Director of the academic unit in question.

Process:

COLA Deadline: May 1

1. Download the Annual Review template 
2. Fill out the template, as follows (see Fig.A):
   1. Add your department/academic unit’s name.
   2. Add the period for which the faculty are being reviewed.
      1. This varies by unit.
   3. List all of the primary or joint tenured, tenure-track, and professional-track faculty in your unit; use “Lastname, Firstname.”
   4. Add the faculty EIDs.
   5. Add the faculty ranks [Assistant Professor, Professor, Associate Professor of Instruction, etc…]
   6. Record the department’s overall rating category for each faculty member who was reviewed.
      1. The department can only choose one rating category for each review, per the Guidelines sec. 4.a, 5.a.
   7. Record the chair’s overall rating category for each faculty member reviewed.
      1. The Guidelines specify the Chair is meant to provide their own overall rating for each faculty member reviewed. [sec. 5.a, 5.b] (They do not rate themselves.)
      2. If no Chair rating is recorded on the report submitted to COLA, the college will assume the chair’s rating was the same as the BC/EC.
   8. At a minimum, please provide the policy justification for not reviewing a given faculty member; ex. “CPR in 23-24”; or “Vice Provost (100% time)” [see sec. 3.b.]
      1. Chairs and directors are not exempt from departmental annual review.
      2. CPR is the only ‘intensive’ review that exempts from annual review.
      3. Departments with review periods of greater than 1 year will need to take extra care in assessing exemptions from review.
3. When complete, upload your spreadsheet to the Annual Reviews submission portal.

Fig. A:

FAQ:

Q: Our faculty believe they only need to review merit-eligible faculty. Why are you asking for the chair's rating, etc.?

A: A department can conduct faculty evaluations will fulfill the needs of both the annual review and merit processes at the same time. However, the two processes are distinct and have different purposes and reporting requirements:

Q: What if our department’s review period doesn’t match the academic year?  (E.g. In February 2022, we evaluate our faculty for their activities during 2020-21.)
A: For the annual review process, we ask that when departments communicate their ratings, they specify which years are being evaluated as well as the year those ratings are being communicated. Departments can determine the scope of their annual review but are expected to clearly define their practice and to keep it consistent (or, make & communicate changes to the process when needed, consistent with their faculty governance and/or by-laws).

Q: As in the previous question, we will be submitting 2021-22 reviews that are based on 2020-21.  What should we do about faculty who started in Fall 2021?
A: Each department’s governing body (EC/EBC/BC) shall establish faculty annual review criteria and methods to ensure fair and consistent standards.  In each instance where a given individual’s record does not fit established review standards or parameters, the governing body should determine how they might most fairly accommodate the record and, as applicable, establish precedent(s) for subsequent review cycles. 

In the example above, the established practice would have the department not review the new faculty member until 2021-22.  While the department can make exceptions to their own practices, document under what circumstances would they do so and why.  Be sure to also consider how that decision would impact future review cycles.   

Q: If I have the review results in January, do I still wait until May to submit them?
A: No, you can submit the department’s annual faculty review ratings at any time before May 1 of an academic year. 

Q: Do I have to use the college’s template?
A: Yes, please. (Makes it easier for our record-keeping.)

Q: Does the college need copies of the Annual Reviews themselves?
A: Not currently; the department is responsible for retaining these documents. However, the department should be able to produce these records upon request of the College, Provost Office, or others. (If the department wishes to send copies to the college to keep on file, they may upload these to the Annual Review Submissions Portal.

Related policies:

HOP 2-2151: Annual Review of Faculty

Provost Office Annual Review Guidelines

Other Related Links:

 COLA Annual Review Ratings template