Guidelines should be followed that provide reasonable consistency in evaluation among all departments and among faculty within individual departments. Department Heads are responsible for evaluating faculty in their departments in accordance with the guidelines established in this document. The Department Head's evaluation should take into account the nature of the faculty members stated and approved objectives, as expressed in the annual spring conference. To the extent possible, the evaluation should be based on performance that is documented by the Faculty Annual Report.
Preliminary to the Department Head's evaluation, each faculty member will complete an Annual Report and a self-evaluation to be submitted to the Department Head together with whatever supporting material the faculty member considers appropriate. The Department Head will evaluate each faculty member using the FAR evaluation form, which also provides an opportunity for self-evaluation by the faculty member. The Department Head will confer with each faculty member in the department and discuss the evaluation as it pertains to that individual. The faculty member will initial and date the FAR Evaluation form at the conclusion of the conference with the Department Head.
A review of the faculty member by the Dean, or his/her designee, shall follow the College's Evaluation Appeals Procedure, provided that the faculty member appeals within five (5) working days of the spring conference and that the faculty member forwards a written statement to the Dean in which all concerns in question are documented. The grounds for appeal are limited.
I. Teaching Activity -- The Department Head may consider, but he/she is not limited to, the
following factors in evaluating a faculty member's performance in the area of instruction:
- The general reputation of the faculty member as a teacher among students, departmental colleagues and others in the University community, as perceived by the Departmental Head.
- Student rating of the faculty member's effectiveness as a teacher. SRI's are not to be attached to college-wide list of accomplishments.
- The degree of organization of the teaching process, as indicated by course syllabi, outlines, information sheets, etc., provided to students.
- Evidence that the faculty member keeps abreast of new developments in the field, revising course content and methodology as appropriate.
- Evidence of innovative approaches in instruction.
- Research and/or publication related to the pedagogy of the field.
- Accessibility of the faculty member to students outside the classroom, as perceived by the Department Head.
- Participation with other faculty and the Department Head in curriculum development and in accomplishing the instructional mission of the department.
- Evidence of effort to improve teaching ability or to develop new areas of competence.
- Reputation as a teacher outside this University, as evidenced by invitations to speak or give workshops related to instruction at other institutions.
- Membership, participation, and/or office in professional organizations specifically oriented towards teaching.
- Evidence of thesis supervision.
- Evidence of academic advisement.
- Other considerations appropriate to instruction.
II. Scholarly Activity -- The Department Head may consider, but he/she is not limited to, the
following factors in evaluating a faculty member's performance in the area of scholarly
- Books, chapters in books and monographs published or accepted for publication. The Department Head's professional judgment of the publishing house shall be considered in the evaluation.
- Articles published (or accepted for publication) in scholarly journals, where such articles are subject to peer review in the discipline. Non-refereed articles and local journals shall not carry the same weight.
- Book reviews and editorial reviews for publishers of books, monographs, and journals.
- Grants awarded to support instruction, research, or service.
- Papers presented at national or regional meetings of professional organizations. Papers presented at state and local meetings should carry less weight.
- Evidence of progress in research or grantsmanship. Progress reports, grant applications, preliminary reports presented at meetings, manuscripts submitted for consideration, etc., are some of the factors which may be considered.
- Other appropriate accomplishments related to scholarly and creative activities.
III. Service -- The Department Head may consider, but he/she is not limited to, the following
factors in evaluating a faculty member's performance in the area of service:
- Leadership activities in national and regional professional organizations; to a lesser extent, similar activities in state and local organizations.
- Honors and special recognition for outstanding service to the discipline as awarded by national, regional, state, and local organizations.
- Service, especially in a leadership role, on major University and College committees.
- Service on departmental committees.
- Efforts toward recruitment and retention of students.
- Presentation of papers or speeches to local or regional groups related to discipline.
- Professional consulting, compensated or not (related to discipline).
- Other service of an appropriate nature.
The above guidelines are just that: guides to evaluation of faculty performance. They cannot be rigidly applied in all situations. The guidelines must be interpreted to fit the circumstances of individual faculty in the various disciplines.
A rating of "plus" (+) in a given category indicates an exceptional performance and makes the recipient eligible to compete for a college-level merit increase in that category. Faculty may apply for college-level merit consideration only in the area(s) where performance has been rated as plus (+). (95-100)
The "check" rating indicates a level of performance which is meritorious within the department and qualifies the faculty member for a departmental-level merit increase. (85-94)
A rating of "A" (A) indicates an acceptable level of performance and qualifies the recipient for any mandatory salary increase for all University faculty meeting minimum expectations. (75-84)
A negative rating (-) indicates that the faculty member has not performed at a high enough level in an area to qualify for a merit increase in salary. A negative rating in teaching disqualifies an individual from consideration for both college- and departmental-level merit increases.
When funds are available for the College of Arts and Sciences that permit variable salary increases based on merit, the Dean will divide the money into two pools. One pool will be for college-level merit increases and the other for departmental-level merit increases. UNLESS ADJUSTED AUTOMATICALLY BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES, ALL SALARY INCREASES AT J.S.U. ARE BASED UPON MERIT/PERFORMANCE. College-level increases (which may vary in amount) will be awarded those applicants judged by the C.A.S. Personnel Committee to have performed at a level placing them among the most meritorious of the entire faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences.
Departmental-level increases will be awarded to all faculty whose Faculty Annual Reviews indicate that they have performed at a meritorious level within the department, as determined by the Department Head. Recognizing the importance the University places upon good teaching, a high priority will be placed on teaching accomplishments.
NOTE: MERIT DISTRIBUTION DECISIONS ARE NOT APPEALABLE.