Standard Number 3.7.2: The institution regularly evaluates the effectiveness of each faculty member in accord with published criteria, regardless of contractual or tenured status.

The institution did not provide any documentation regarding how policies for faculty evaluation are implemented. The On-Site Review Committee should review a sample of completed evaluations to confirm implementation.

Sample faculty evaluations (with identifiers removed) are attached.

Additional evidence demonstrating how policies for faculty evaluation are implemented at Georgia Southern University is found in each college’s Bylaws or governance document. The College of Education’s Bylaws, approved April 2003, specifically state that it is the responsibility of the department chair to “conduct annual faculty evaluations and discuss results with faculty” [Bylaws, p. 7, (m)]. The department chair is also tasked with recommending merit salary increases based upon the guidelines established in each department and forwarding these recommendations to the dean of the college [Bylaws, p. 7, (n)]. Merit salary increases, of course, are based upon a faculty member’s performance during the time under review. Finally, the department chair holds responsibility for “charging a departmental promotion and tenure committee during each year in which promotion and/or tenure recommendations are to be made” [Bylaws, p. 7, (l)]; and recommending “to the dean appointments, reappointments, promotions, and tenure, of the department faculty, after consideration of the recommendation of the departmental promotion and tenure committee” [Bylaws, p. 7, (o)]. The document also specifies the units responsible for promotion and tenure evaluations (Bylaws, p. 8, § 4 & § 5). For example, “Recommendations for promotion are made through the following committees and administrators: departmental promotion and tenure committees, chairs of departments, college promotion and tenure committee, the dean, and the provost. The provost and vice president for academic affairs will forward his/her recommendation to the President.” [See also Statutes, Article VI, § 1(B)(3); Article III, § 2(G) and § 3(C).] Additionally, the Bylaws outline the specific responsibilities of the departmental promotion and tenure committees [Bylaws, p. 11, § 2(b), p. 14, § 2(h), and p. 15]. Finally, the Bylaws delineate the dean’s responsibilities as related to faculty evaluations [Bylaws, p. 4 (h)].

The College of Science and Technology also publishes its governance document. This document outlines the composition and functions of the College Tenure and Promotion Committee (see 1 under “Standing Committees). In particular, the document states that “the committee will also review all recommendations transmitted from academic departments [and] make recommendations and provide justification for those recommendations to the dean.” It goes on to describe the criteria for promotion and tenure decisions. The governance document also contains the annual faculty review policy and form. As stated on the form, “The review of faculty members is to be conducted annually by the appropriate administrator. Copies of the Review are to be filed in the office of the department chair/unit head and the dean.” This form also lists the criteria used for the review. Finally, the governance document describes the college’s post-tenure review policy, specifying the roles and responsibilities in this process. For instance, “Each unit within the Allen E. Paulson College of Science and Technology will form a post-tenure review committee and develop written procedures and specific criteria for post-tenure review. A copy of the unit’s post-tenure procedures will be provided to each tenured and tenure-track faculty member in the unit. Unit post-tenure review policy must be consistent with the Post-Tenure Review Policy for Georgia Southern University as well as the Post-Tenure Review Policy for the Allen E. Paulson College of Science and Technology.”

The College of Business Administration’s Bylaws likewise address the issue of faculty evaluation. The duties of the dean are described under Article I, Section 2, while the department chair’s responsibilities are outlined under Article I, Section 5. Like the College of Education Bylaws, this document articulates the chair’s role in faculty evaluations, describes the units responsible for promotion and tenure, outlines the departmental promotion and tenure committee responsibilities, and (in Appendix A) describes the promotion and tenure criteria and procedures. Appendix B documents the criteria and procedures for the annual faculty evaluations. As stated under the “Preamble:” “(1) The immediate supervisor will discuss with the faculty member in a scheduled conference the content of that faculty member’s evaluation. (2) The faculty member will sign a statement to the effect that he/she has been apprised of the content of the annual evaluation. (3) The faculty member will be given the opportunity to respond in writing to the annual evaluation. The response, if any, will be attached to the evaluation. (4) The immediate supervisor will acknowledge in writing his/her receipt of this response, noting changes, if any, in the annual evaluation made as a result of either the conference or the faculty member’s written response. This acknowledgement will also become part of the record.” Appendix C outlines the responsibilities of the college’s committees, including the promotion and tenure committee.

The College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences publishes their Policies and Procedures which like the other colleges outlines the responsibilities and procedures for faculty evaluations (p. 9), promotion and tenure (pp. 14-26), post-tenure review (pp. 26-28), pre-tenure review (p. 12), and peer review (p. 8). Under peer review, the Policies read that “for annual performance evaluations, continuation of probationary contracts, promotion decisions, and tenure decisions, the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences encourages departments to include some form of peer review. Because of the Board of Regents’ Policy on Post-Tenure Review, some form of peer evaluation must be included in the regular reviews of tenured faculty.” The document further describes acceptable forms of peer review.

The College of Information Technology’s Bylaws are modeled very closely after the College of Business Administration’s. The College of Health and Human Sciences (CHHS) is in the process of working on formal written policies. This task will be a top priority for the new associate dean when that candidate is hired. (The search is currently being concluded.) In the interim, CHHS is reviewing the recommendations of the Faculty Roles and Rewards Task Force which has recommended a university workload model that has implications for how faculty are evaluated.