EFFECTIVE DATE: June 22, 2015
ISSUE #: 6
PRESIDENT: William Flores
PURPOSE
This PS states the policy and procedures for tenure/tenure-track faculty performance
evaluations. Evaluation of lecturers and adjuncts will be carried out according to standards
determined by each department. Faculty performance evaluations promote the highest
standards of professional performance, provide a record of individual achievement, promote
professional development, allow for the recognition of meritorious performance, and increase
the awareness on the part of University stakeholders of the professional activities of tenure,
tenure-track, and non-tenured faculty. Moreover, this PS provides the policy and procedures
for awarding merit-based salary increases consistent with state law and the expectations of the
UHS Board of Regents. Probationary faculty members should be cognizant of the PS 10.A.01 University Rank and Tenure policy. The annual performance reports assist chairs and
departmental Rank and Tenure committees in assessing progress toward tenure.
DEFINITIONS
No applicable definitions available.
POLICY / PROCEDURES
3.1 Operating Details
3.1.1 The evaluation of each tenured/tenure-track faculty member’s performance is
based upon an assessment of activities in three areas:
3.1.1.1 teaching and instruction, 50% of the total evaluation calculation, or a
weight factor of 0.50, and
3.1.1.2 scholarly/creative activities, 25%, or a weight factor of 0.25, and
3.1.1.3 service/professional activities, 25%, or a weight factor of 0.25.
Faculty members are responsible for providing sufficient evidence of activities in all
three areas to allow for evaluation according to criteria detailed in departmental
evaluation rubrics.
3.1.2 Development and Review of Departmental Evaluation Criteria and Rubrics
In each department, the department chair and all tenured and tenure-track
faculty shall be involved in developing the criteria and corresponding rubrics
used to assess performance in each of the three areas. Developed criteria and
corresponding rubrics should be approved by a majority of tenured and tenuretrack faculty within the department. Individual departments/colleges may
decide whether or not lecturers may vote on evaluation criteria. In the annual
self-evaluation process, a faculty member must clearly articulate activity in
each of the three areas and provide supporting evidence of that activity to the
chair and faculty reviewers.
To ensure consistency, each chair submits the department’s criteria and
determinations concerning the three areas to be used for the following year to
the faculty of the department, to the appropriate dean, and to the Vice President
for Academic Affairs by December 15.
For example, in December 2015, the chair submits the criteria and the
corresponding rubric that will be used to assess the performance of faculty for
calendar year 2016; individual reports are submitted in January 2017. If such
updated criteria and corresponding departmental rubrics have not been
submitted, the faculty shall use the criteria and corresponding departmental
rubric in effect the previous year.
3.1.3 Subcommittee and Chair Review of Faculty Performance
The evaluation of each full-time faculty member’s performance is based upon
assessment of faculty activities in teaching, scholarly/creative activities, and
service/professional activities according to criteria detailed in departmental
evaluation rubrics. Each evaluation is carried out by the department chair and a
subcommittee of the department Rank and Tenure Committee elected by the
tenured and tenure-track faculty. Subcommittees must consist of a minimum of
three tenured faculty members. Alternates to the elected members of the
subcommittee will be chosen by the Department Chair to review the faculty
performance of the elected members of the subcommittee. When necessary, the
department chair may request multiple subcommittees be constituted to ease
workload in departments with large numbers of faculty. When only one
subcommittee is constituted, all members of the subcommittee of the
department Rank and Tenure Committee, as well as the Department Chair, must
evaluate each and every faculty member to ensure consistency and fairness in
the appraisal process. In instances where multiple subcommittees are
constituted, all members of a particular subcommittee, as well as the
Department Chair, must evaluate each faculty member assigned to that
subcommittee. In instances where a department does not have enough tenured
faculty members to constitute the minimum subcommittee, the department chair
may constitute a subcommittee appropriate to the makeup and size of the
department.
3.1.4 Assigning of Faculty Merit Rating Scores
The faculty evaluation subcommittee consults with the department chair
concerning the performance of each faculty member, according to the
evaluation criteria and rubrics created by the department. The department chair
assigns whole-number numerical ratings ranging from 0 to 7 for each of the
three areas of assessment. Scores for teaching, scholarly/creative activities, and
service/professional activities are based upon the criteria established by the
individual departments, and articulated in evaluation rubrics. As noted in 3.1.1
and 3.1.2, these scores must be based on detailed evidence submitted by the
faculty member in each area of activity. The process of consultation between
the department chair and the subcommittee will be determined by, and
distributed to the department.
Ratings assigned for the three areas are combined using the weight factors
specified in 3.1.1 to place each faculty member in merit-rating categories. A
score of 7 is assigned for faculty significantly exceeding expectations; a score
of 4-6 is assigned for faculty members who exceed expectations to varying
degrees; a score of 3 is assigned for faculty members who meet expectations; a
score of 2 is assigned for faculty members who are performing below
expectations; a score of 1 is assigned for faculty members who are significantly
below expectations; and a score of 0 is assigned for faculty members who have
demonstrated professional misconduct, or for faculty members who are derelict
in their duty. See Merit Categories, Corresponding Merit Factors and Merit Raise Formulas, and Example Case for more information. Faculty who receive
a rating of 2 or lower for teaching or whose overall evaluation is 2 or lower will
begin the development plan specified in the Performance Evaluation of Tenured Faculty, PS 10.1.16, Section 2.2.1.
Numerical scores in each of the three areas, and the faculty member’s total merit
rating are reported to the appropriate Dean. The Dean may review the scores to
ensure that the scores are justified by, and consistent with, the department’s
criteria outlined in the departmental rubrics. When the Dean disagrees with the
department’s scores, the Dean will send the department’s scores back to the
department with written comments for further consideration. The department
chair will consult with the subcommittee, determine the final score, and provide
written justification of the final scores.
3.1.5 Awarding of Merit Raises to Meritorious Faculty
Merit raises are awarded in compliance with all applicable state laws and in
accordance with the directives of the UH System Board of Regents (BOR).
Specifically, faculty raises shall only be awarded based upon merit; cost-ofliving adjustments are not awarded.
Merit raises are calculated from three-year, weighted, rolling averages of annual
merit ratings for faculty.
In years when merit raises are to be awarded, the Provost and President shall
determine the total pool of merit money available for award. The Provost will
allocate a percentage of the total faculty salaries to each department as that
department’s merit pool. Each department will be allocated an equal
percentage. For example, in a particular year, each department will be
distributed 3% of the total faculty salaries in their respective department. This
will ensure that departments that have faculty of higher salary are not
appropriated a disproportionate amount of the total merit pool.
The chairs and Deans are responsible for ensuring that the distribution of merit
is guided by the evaluation process and that the process of awarding merit is
fair and transparent. The chairs and Deans will also address issues of equity in
the Department and ensure that faculty with higher salaries are not appropriated
a disproportionate amount of the total merit pool for the Department. Within 30
days of merit being assigned, the Provost will present to the Faculty Senate
Executive Committee the non-identified relationship between merit raises and
evaluation scores for each department.
The Department Chairs and Dean of each college will work with the Provost to
determine the awarding of merit to individual faculty members within their
college according to a three-year, weighted rolling average of annual merit
ratings from the three previous annual appraisals. See sections 3.1.3 and 3.1.4
for the calculation of faculty merit ratings.
The most current faculty merit rating is weighted more heavily than faculty
merit ratings from that of previous years, such that:
The most recent faculty merit rating is weighted as most important, and
comprises 50% of the three-year weighted average;
The second-most recent faculty merit rating is weighted of intermediate
importance, and comprises 30% of the three-year weighted average;
The third-most recent faculty merit rating is weighted of least importance, and
comprises 20% of the three-year weighted average.
For faculty members that do not have three continuous years of service for
evaluation under the 7-point merit scale articulated in this policy, a pro-rated
model will be utilized:
I). For faculty members with only one year of service, that one year will be
evaluated and merit scores assigned for each area and weighted
according to section 3.1.
II). For faculty members with two years of services, each year of service
will be evaluated, and ratings assigned for the three areas are combined
using the weight factors specified in 3.1.1 to place each faculty member
in merit-rating categories for each year.
The most current faculty merit rating is weighted more heavily than faculty
merit ratings from that of the previous year, such that:
The most recent faculty merit rating comprises 75% of the two-year weighted
average;
The second-most recent faculty merit rating comprises 25% of the two-year
weighted average;
3.1.6 Merit Rating Categories and Example Merit Calculation
Merit Categories, Corresponding Merit Factors and Merit Raise Formulas, and Example Case contains the specific merit categories and an example
merit calculation.
3.1.7 Faculty Annual Reports
All tenured and tenure-track faculty members write an annual report detailing
activities performed in the three areas of teaching, scholarly/creative activities,
and service/professional activities (see Sections 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and Exhibit A
for report guidelines). The faculty member should consult the appropriate
department chair for specific departmental guidelines for preparing the report.
Faculty should articulate activities in these three areas in a manner consistent
with the criteria established by the individual departments, and with evaluation
rubrics in mind. Additional evidence for reported activities beyond what is
provided in annual reports must be provided upon request to ensure that Chairs
and departmental subcommittees can conduct an informed evaluation.
3.1.8 Department Chair Evaluation Reports to Faculty
The department chair will submit written reports to faculty members
explaining the overall merit rating and scores assigned to them in all three areas
according to the timeline specified in section 3.5. Reports to faculty should
clearly articulate where deficiencies in performance and/or report preparation
exist and where improvement is needed.
3.1.9 Evaluation Meetings between Chairs and Faculty
The department chair schedules meetings with individual faculty members to
discuss assigned evaluation scores, merit rating, and contents of the department
chair report. Meetings between individual faculty members and department
chairs may be waived by written, mutual consent. Probationary faculty
members and chairs may discuss progress toward tenure at these meetings.
Faculty that do not schedule a meeting or request to waive their meeting with
the Chair within two weeks after receiving their report from the Chair are
assumed to have waived their meeting with the Chair.
3.1.10 Appeal of Faculty Performance Evaluation
Any faculty member who is dissatisfied with the rating assigned by the chair,
or believes that the evaluation criteria outlined in the departmental rubric(s)
were not followed may request a performance review by a committee of at least
three tenured faculty members in the department. This review committee must
exclude the members of the departmental Rank and Tenure Committee that
served on the subcommittee for the initial review of that faculty member’s
performance. If a department has an insufficient number of tenured faculty
members, then those eligible to serve on this committee must have a minimum
of three years of tenure-track service at UH–Downtown. This review
committee is elected by each department’s tenured and tenure-track faculty
excluding those with administrative ranks of chair or higher, with the election
held prior to December 15 in the semester before the evaluation process begins.
This committee reviews the faculty member's performance and evaluation and
makes its recommendation to the dean separate from that of the Department
Chair. A faculty member dissatisfied with the dean's resolution of the issue, or
who still believes that the evaluation criteria outlined in the departmental
rubric(s) were not followed may undertake formal grievance procedures.
3.2 Evaluation of Teaching/Instructional Performance
All faculty members write a report detailing all teaching and instructional activities,
including high impact teaching practices, for the evaluation period. These activities
must be documented upon request. The report should consist of a brief list of activities.
See Faculty Evaluation Reports for examples of teaching/instructional activities that
might be included. In assessing teaching/instructional performance, the chair reviews
evidence concerning the faculty member’s performance in terms of the evaluation
criteria developed by the department and articulated in the departmental rubrics.
3.3 Evaluation of Scholarly/Creative Activities
Faculty members' contributions to the development of knowledge and/or to the
reputation of the university are important. All faculty members write a report
detailing scholarly/creative activities that they undertook during the evaluation period.
These activities must be documented. The report consists of a list of activities. See
Faculty Evaluation Reports for a list of activities that might be included. In assessing
scholarly and creative activities, the chair reviews evidence concerning the faculty
member’s performance in terms of the evaluation criteria developed by the department
and articulated in the departmental rubrics.
3.4 Evaluation of Service
Because the mission of UH-Downtown is service as well as teaching, all faculty
members include in their report specific details about their service activities for the
university, the profession, and/or the community undertaken during the evaluation
period. These activities must be documented. The report consists of a list of activities.
See Faculty Evaluation Reports for a list of activities that might be included. In
assessing service contributions, the chair reviews evidence concerning the faculty
member’s performance in terms of the evaluation criteria developed by the department
and articulated in the departmental rubrics.
3.5 Timetable*
December 15
| Elections of departmental review committees have been completed. Departments submit evaluation criteria and corresponding rubrics for the following calendar year to faculty of the department, the appropriate dean, and the VPAA/Provost.
|
January 15
| Faculty members submit reports listing activities for the previous calendar year.
|
February 20
| Chairs submit preliminary ratings to their dean.
|
February 25
| Chairs submit written formal ratings and written reports for each of the three evaluation areas to their dean and to the individual faculty member (see paragraph 3.1.9).
|
March 10
| Chairs have completed conferences with the faculty members in their department.
|
March 15
| Faculty members wishing a review of their rating(s) have notified their chair, their department review committee, and their dean.
|
April 10
| Department review committees have reported their recommendations to their department chair, to their dean, and to each individual faculty member requesting a review.
|
* Note: If a date falls on a weekend or holiday, the deadline is deferred until the next
business day.
PROCEDURES
See Section 3 for Procedures
EXHIBITS
There are no exhibits associated with this policy.
REVIEW PROCESS
Responsible Party (Reviewer): Senior Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs and
Provost
Review: Every five years, or as necessary
Signed original on file in Employment Services and Operations.
POLICY HISTORY
Issue #4: 01/01/2007
Issue #5: 12/18/2015
Issue #6: 06/22/2015
Issue dates for previous versions are not available.
REFERENCES
PS 10.A.01 University Rank and Tenure policy
Merit Categories, Corresponding Merit Factors and Merit Raise Formulas, and Example Case
Faculty Evaluation Reports
