Annual Evaluation and Mid-Term Review

As stated in University Rule 12.01.99.M1, section 2.4.3, each department must have its own set of published guidelines describing their procedures for annual review, which have been reviewed and approved by Faculty Affairs for consistency with University Rules and System Policies. If there is no need for department specific guidelines, a college-wide document, developed jointly by faculty and administrators and reviewed by Faculty Affairs, is sufficient.

As stated in University Rule 12.01.99.M1, section 4.4.2, the faculty and administrators of each college shall jointly develop written guidelines describing the evaluation criteria employed in the unit consistent with university criteria and procedures. In those units in which the goals and objectives of departments differ significantly from the college, respective departments should also have written evaluation guidelines.
Faculty evaluation guidelines shall be periodically reviewed and approved by the Faculty Affairs. Faculty Affairs will post, on the website, the most current guidelines for each department and college.

The following guidelines are to be used in conjunction with college and departmental guidelines and processes.

All faculty members, whether tenured or not, must have an annual written review, for which the department head or supervisor, if in an administrative position, is responsible. If a faculty member is assigned to a part-time administrative position, the supervisor and department head will evaluate the assigned duties under their supervision. This written report should contain specific feedback on the faculty member’s prospects for promotion or reappointment if performance continues at the current level. Faculty members in probationary periods should know as accurately as possible how well they are progressing toward tenure or promotion.

Reviews will vary somewhat depending upon the rank of the individual and the stage of their career at the time of review.

• Reviews for academic professional track faculty will focus on performance and potential for reappointment and promotion.
• Reviews for tenure-track faculty who have not yet achieved tenure will focus on performance relative to departmental norms and progress toward tenure and promotion
• Reviews for tenured associate professors will focus on performance relative to departmental norms and identifying the faculty member’s progress toward promotion to professor.
• Reviews for tenured professors should focus on the goal of development, by clarifying institutional goals, individual goals and programmatic directions, and by evaluating the contributions of the faculty member toward meeting those goals.
• Reviews for all tenured faculty, irrespective of rank, should align with the department’s Post Tenure Review criteria which specifies that categories ranging from “most meritorious” to “unsatisfactory” must be assigned to each faculty member’s annual review. Whatever processes exist for annual reviews, the requirement for Post Tenure Review stipulates that no less than once every six years peers must be involved in the review (University SAP 12.06.99.M0.01 Post-Tenure Review).

Other Information

• Annual evaluation reviews, regardless of being conducted for the calendar or academic year, must be completed before merit raises may be recommended, and never later than June 15 of each year.
• The focus of the annual review will vary, depending upon the rank of the individual.
• Reviews should be conducted with reference to the criteria and expectations stated in department and college guidelines, as well as any other written expectations for the faculty member, such as those in the faculty member’s appointment letter and/or annual notification of the terms and conditions of appointment.
• Salary recommendations should be consistent with the performance evaluation.
• The department head must provide the faculty member with a written statement regarding progress and performance. The faculty member should acknowledge receipt of the written statement and be allowed to provide written comments for the file if they choose to do so.
• The department head will provide the opportunity for a meeting with the faculty member to discuss his/her accomplishments, deficiencies, and goals for the next year.
• When there is a change of department head, care should be taken not to disrupt continuity. It is expected, however, that performance criteria and college and department priorities may change over time. Faculty members must be kept informed of current expectations.

For additional information refer to University Rule 12.01.99.M1: University Statement on Academic Freedom, Responsibility, Tenure and Promotion, Section 2.4.

The mid-term review is intended to provide a formative review of tenure-track and, in some colleges, academic professional track faculty members near the mid-point of their probationary period or appointment, respectively. The mid-term review should result in an independent evaluation of the faculty member’s accomplishments to date and constructive guidance for the remainder of the probationary period in their progress towards tenure or promotion. The mid-term review should be similar to the promotion and tenure review process, including the submission of dossier materials. However, no outside letters are required.

Note: It is not necessary to conduct an independent annual review for a faculty member in the year that their mid-term review is taking place. (The mid-term review can count as the annual review for that year.) However, each department has the option of conducting its annual review as a separate process from the mid-term review. The college and department guidelines should be clear about the manner in which annual review is handled during the mid-term review year.

The mid-term review package goes only to the Dean’s level (it is not forwarded to the Provost, President, Chancellor or Board of Regents).

Timing of Mid-Term reviews is shown in the table in the next section (entitled, “The ‘Tenure Clock’”).

The review should not begin before March of the academic year prior to the target academic year, and should be completed before December of the target year. Example: If the mid-term review is due during the 2021-2022 academic year, it may be completed anytime between March 2021 and December 2021.

Any individual hired for a tenure-track position will be required to submit materials for review during the academic year prior to the end of their probationary period, the mandatory review year. The exact timing of this depends upon the length of the probationary period (see chart below). The start of a tenure-track faculty member’s mandatory consideration year (academic year) can be calculated as follows:

Calendar year hired + Probationary period – 2 years = First year of Tenure Consideration Period

Example 1: For a faculty member hired any time in calendar year 2021 on a seven year probationary period: 2021 + 7 – 2 = 2026 (academic year 2026-2027) is the mandatory year to submit dossier

Example 2: For a faculty member hired any time in calendar year 2021 on a six-year probationary period: 2021 + 6 – 2 = 2025 (academic year 2025-2026) is the mandatory year to submit dossier

 Faculty Member Hired in 2021

If probationary period                      Mid-Term Review                    Mandatory Tenure Review

7 years                                               March - Dec 2024                                2026-2027

6 years                                               March - Dec 2024                                2025-2026

5 years                                               March - Dec 2023                                2024-2025

4 years                                               March - Dec 2022                                2023-2024

Since the probationary period consists of a series of one-year contracts, a decision not to reappoint an individual who is on probation can be made any time up to the year of the mandatory review. Non- reappointment should be considered if performance is unsatisfactory to the point that it is clearly unlikely the person will qualify for tenure, as neither party benefits from prolonging an unsatisfactory situation. Such a decision is made, of course, with great care and only in compelling circumstances.

Please note that notification of non-renewal may be made in spite of a prior decision to extend the probationary period. However, once notification of non-renewal is made, no probationary period extension may be requested.

Advance notice of non-reappointment, or intention not to reappoint a faculty member, shall be given in writing in accord with standards listed in Section 2.2 of University Rule 12.01.99.M1.

Extensions of the probationary period may be granted upon petition by the faculty member, recommendation by the department head and dean, and approval by Faculty Affairs. Extensions are usually for one year, but a longer period may be requested in compelling circumstances. Any extension greater than one year must be approved by the Provost and Executive Vice President.

A faculty member may petition an extension of the probationary period in the following cases:

• The faculty member is taking leave without pay, or a reduction in service to 50% time for a semester or academic year, provided the leave is not taken solely for the purpose of pursuing activities that will enhance the faculty member’s qualifications for tenure and promotion.
• The faculty member has encountered circumstances that may seriously impede progress toward demonstration qualification for the award of tenure and promotion. Such circumstances might include (but are not limited to):
  • serious illness or injury
  • having responsibility for the primary care of an infant or small child
  • having responsibility for the primary care of a close relative who is disabled, elderly or seriously ill
  • any serious disruption of the probationary period for unexpected reasons beyond the faculty member’s control.