Date of Last Update
- University Academic Senate / Provost
Export Policy As PDF
Faculty Evaluation Procedures
Faculty Evaluation Procedures:
A. Written Performance Expectations
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 the faculty member's 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.
1. Faculty members are expected to refrain from engaging in non-collegial behavior towards each other that will threaten or harm the productive environment critical for the progress and success of the unit and the university community. The functions of teaching/professional effectiveness, scholarship/creative activities, and service should be free from "incivility, misuse of authority, intimidation, humiliation, retaliation, and infringement upon personal and academic freedoms". (Source: Senior Leadership Team policy SLT 3.3)
2. Collegiality should be understood in professional, not personal, terms, as it relates to the performance of a faculty member's duties. Collegiality does not refer to one's view of another's social skills or position on controversial issues, which should not be part of the faculty evaluation process. Nor does collegiality require a display of enthusiasm, dedication, or "fit" within the unit.
3. Collegiality is not a fourth, separate evaluation criterion at Grand Valley. Only the three criteria specified in the General Personnel Policies (i.e., teaching/professional effectiveness, scholarly/creative activities, and service) are appropriately part of the evaluation process; however, non-collegial behavior can be relevant as a qualitative standard applied to those three criteria during a personnel action and may result in a negative outcome. (When non-collegial behavior affects the unit's ability to function productively, it should be brought up under the service evaluation criterion.)
4. Non-collegiality is normally a pattern of behavior. Verified and documented allegations of "repeated and unreasonable activity, or a severe non-collegial act" (Source PC 3.3), will be considered evidence of non-collegial behavior in the context of personnel actions. Concerns about non-collegial behavior must be communicated in writing to the faculty member by the unit head before they can be brought up in a personnel action.
5. Academic misconduct, illegal activity, violations of GVSU's discrimination policy, or violations of academic integrity are a separate matter and should be addressed through proper disciplinary procedures.
See also the Collegiality Policy Statement in the President's Cabinet Policies [PC 3.3]
F. Contract Renewals, Promotion and Tenure Decisions
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 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.
August 27, 2019 - changed "President's Cabinet" to "Senior Leadership Team"
January 7, 2019 - FH 3.05 A-F retitled SG 3.07
August 6, 2018 -FH 3.05 E "Collegiality" revised at March 2, 2018 UAS, to be effective