Policy Details


Date of Last Update
4/4/2017

Approved By
  • Board of Trustees
  • University Academic Senate / Provost

Responsible Office
Provost Office

Categories

Print Policy
Export Policy As PDF

Faculty Evaluation Procedures

FH 3.05 A-F

  1. Policy Statement

Policy Statement

Faculty Evaluation Procedures:

A.    Written Performance Expectation

Each unit will develop written performance expectations (for contract renewal, tenure, promotion, and sabbatical leave) of all unit faculty as appropriate to various ranks. These expectations should be specific to the disciplinary focus of the unit but compatible with the performance expectations of all faculty as expressed in the Faculty Handbook and of the college/school in which the unit is housed.

B.    Faculty Activity Reports and Faculty Activity Plans

Annually, by October 1, each faculty member will prepare a Faculty Activity Plan (FAP) for the next calendar year and by February 1 submit the  Faculty Activity Report for the preceding calendar  year. These documents should address how his/her activities and achievements comply with the general expectations of the unit, college/school, and the university. The Faculty Activity Plans and Faculty Activity Reports will be reviewed by the unit head and the dean of the college (or by a designee of the dean) for consistency with unit and college expectations and be made available to the unit faculty members.

C.    Student Course Evaluations

Normally, student evaluations of each course are completed each semester.

D.    Peer Evaluations

See the process identified in Board of Trustees' Policies  BOT 4.2.3 through 4.2.10.

 E.    Collegiality

1.  Collegiality in an academic evaluation context is generally understood as civility, mutual respect, or as a court decision defines it, "the capacity to relate well and constructively to the comparatively small bank of scholars in whom the ultimate fate of the university rests." 

2.  Collegiality does not refer to one’s view of another’s social skills or position on controversial issues, which are not appropriately part of the evaluation process.  Nor is collegiality a fourth, separate evaluation criterion at Grand Valley. Only the three criteria specified in the General Personnel Policies are appropriately part of the evaluation process; however, collegiality can be relevant as a qualitative standard applied to those three criteria.  For example, a faculty member’s sharing an innovative teaching method with colleagues, assisting another with a scholarly project, and participating in University functions are positive examples of collegiality that are related to the evaluation criteria of teaching effectiveness (for regular faculty) or professional effectiveness (for Library regular faculty), scholarly/creative activity, and service, respectively.

See the Collegiality Policy Statement in the President's Cabinet Policies [PC 3.3]

F.  Contract Renewals, Promotion and Tenure Decisions

The process for personnel evaluations for contract renewals, promotion, and tenure decisions is outlined in the Board of Trustees' Policies  BOT 4.2.9.
See also the Faculty Personnel Actions Workbook.

The unit head or designee(s) refers to the member or members designated by the unit to carry out the personnel review process, as specified in the Board of Trustees' Policies BOT 4.2.10. 

Evaluation Principles. The evaluation process is designed to create an open, uniform, and equitable procedure for the review of faculty by their peers. The central principle of this process is to have an informed, candid, and open, job-related discussion of the candidate in a unit meeting followed by a unit vote and written recommendation. This is accomplished by the following steps given in outline form (specific details for each step are in the relevant sections):

1.  The submission by the unit head and the candidate to the unit of materials necessary for the action under consideration, including relevant Faculty Activity Plans and Faculty Activity Reports.

2.  An agenda for a unit meeting based on the candidate’s review materials and unit regular faculty's input after review of the candidate’s materials. This input should address both the candidate’s achievements and the writer’s concerns as to how the candidate has addressed the criteria for review.

3.  A unit meeting where the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate are discussed followed by a unit vote on the personnel action. The first motion for a vote on the personnel action under consideration is for the action (for renewal, for promotion, or for tenure).

4.  A unit recommendation prepared after the unit meeting based on the discussion and written comments. This recommendation is submitted to the dean.

5.  A review of the unit action by a College/Library Personnel Committee whose role is to:

a.  ascertain whether the unit has followed the procedures for contract renewal, etc.

b.  ascertain whether the unit has adequately discussed all the issues raised by the individual unit regular faculty of the unit about the candidate under discussion.

c.  determine whether substantive issues require the Committee to contradict the unit’s recommendation.

d.  in the absence of a valid vote by the unit, to make a recommendation based on its own judgment.

Evaluation Procedure Flow Chart.  
A Flow Chart of the evaluation procedure is available on the Office of the Provost website.