Faculty Annual Performance Review (APR) and Evaluation Policy

McNeese complies with Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC) Principles of Accreditation Standard 6.3, which states, “The institution publishes and implements policies regarding the appointment, employment, and regular evaluation of faculty members, regardless of contract or tenure status.” The University of Louisiana System Board Rules, Part Two, Chapter III, Section X, D-1 states, “As part of its evaluative procedures, each institution will utilize a system of periodic faculty evaluations by students, with the improvement of teaching effectiveness as a major focus of such evaluations. Institutions are encouraged to utilize multiple sources of information (e.g., student ratings of instruction, peer evaluations, etc.) in their review process. Evaluations are to assess performance in an appropriate mix of teaching, research, and service.”

The annual performance review (APR) process, which supports the University’s mission and goals related to excellence in teaching, research, and service, is intended to benefit both the faculty member and the department:

• To document a faculty member’s activities and achievements.
• To provide feedback (both positive and areas for improvement) on a faculty member’s performance in their assigned roles and on their progress toward academic advancement.
• To define the goals for a faculty member for the upcoming year.
• To define a plan for academic and professional development.
• To inform salary recommendations.

All full-time faculty participate in the annual performance review (APR) which includes three parts:  

1. Evaluation of job effectiveness/productivity in 1) teaching, 2) scholarly activity/research, and 3) service, expressed as a score.
2. Evaluation of performance level, achieved as “Satisfactory” or “Unsatisfactory.”
3. Merit rankings of 1 through 5 based on the following scale: 5=Outstanding, 4=Above Average, 3=Average, 2=Below Average, or 1=Unsatisfactory.

The results of the job effectiveness/productivity and the performance level evaluations are considered in appointment renewal, promotion, and tenure decisions. Merit rankings are directly related to the level of merit pay, if merit pay is funded.

Part-time faculty and faculty with temporary appointments must be evaluated by the department head each semester in order to assess teaching performance and to provide a basis for employment decisions. The evaluation process for part-time faculty (including visiting lecturers and teaching graduate assistants) and temporary faculty focuses on 1) classroom performance, including, but not limited to, Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEI) results and 2) other criteria consistent with the stated employment obligations. Evaluations must be documented and discussed with the part-time or temporary faculty member, and documentation must be maintained in the departmental office.

Part 1: Evaluation of Job Effectiveness/Productivity

The evaluation of job effectiveness/productivity consists of three weighted components:

1. Teaching, weighted at 50%.
2. Scholarly activity/research, weighted at 40%.
3. Service, weighted at 10%.

Individual colleges/departments may adopt a plan that deviates +/- 10% from the weights prescribed above, provided the adjusted weights equal 100% and no component is weighted less than 10%.

Acceptable Weights for College/Departmental Plans:

Teaching	Scholarly Activity/Research	Service	Total
50%	40%	10%	100%
50%	30%	20%	100%
60%	30%	10%	100%
40%	40%	20%	100%
40%	50%	10%	100%

After consultation with and approval by the department head, individual faculty members may deviate +/- 10% from the department’s standard distribution of weighted percentages, provided the individual’s final distribution falls within acceptable University guidelines. For example, for faculty who did not receive reassigned time, teaching may be weighted 60%, scholarly activity at 30%, and service at 10%. If a faculty member received reassigned time for scholarly activity, the scholarly component should be weighted 50%.

Teaching Component (50%)

Faculty members are expected to demonstrate effectiveness in teaching and instructional delivery for achieving student learning outcomes. SEI results and three additional components related to effective instructional delivery must be included in evaluation of the teaching component. The teaching component includes all SEI results from the current academic year. Besides SEI results, additional items for consideration for the teaching component include, but are not limited to:

• Quality and effectiveness of student advising.
• Evidence of innovative instructional delivery techniques, classroom engagement with students, or creative learning activities with positive results for student success.
• Continual course review and revision to maintain currency in the discipline and pedagogical approaches.
• Examples of innovative use of technology to enhance student learning (other than web or hybrid course instruction).
• Student enrollment patterns (withdrawals/student success trends).
• Student success rates.
• Creative use of emerging practices related to instructional delivery and classroom pedagogy, e.g., positive application of AI to influence student learning, augmenting classroom instruction with learning activities outside of usual teaching (guided study sessions, student mentoring, etc.).

Scholarly Activity/Research Component (40%)

Elements of evaluation include documented scholarly activity/research contributing to the discipline such as publications, presentations, or applied research. In the creative fields, such as music, theatre, and art, performance and juried exhibitions are appropriate. In evaluating scholarly activity/research, the department head must evaluate the quality of publications (peer reviewed, etc.), presentations (national, regional, state, local, etc.), or juried artistic productions rather than focus solely on quantity. Professional involvement in the K-12 system which leads to documented applied research or presentation at professional meetings may be considered. Nursing faculty, as members of a practice discipline, can use appropriate professional position statements to guide scholarly activities. Scholarly activity/research must include documentation indicating a contribution which advances the profession. External grants or internal Shearman Research grants selected competitively for funding should receive greater weight than internal grants for scholarly activity/research.

Participation in accreditation efforts must be considered as an appropriate scholarly activity. College or departmental expectations for scholarly activity/research may address particular requirements related to discipline-specific professional or accreditation criteria.

Service Component (10%)

Elements of evaluation for service activities may span a broad spectrum and must include activities related to student recruitment and retention. Faculty members are expected to participate in and contribute to committee and curriculum work at the departmental, college, and University levels. Additionally, faculty who represent the University in their discipline-specific role in ways that contribute to University/community linkages that enhance academic programs or student opportunities for employment should receive consideration for service merit.

Part 2: Evaluation of Performance Level

Performance level is indicated as satisfactory or unsatisfactory for each of the three weighted components in the evaluation of job effectiveness/productivity (teaching, scholarly activity/research, and service) as well as for an overall rating.

Performance Level for the Teaching Component

The performance level rating for the teaching component 1) is an indication of the faculty member’s accountability for meeting University, college, and departmental expectations for instruction, academic performance, and faculty responsibilities; 2) must be documented; and 3) must be indicated as satisfactory or unsatisfactory. Faculty must meet basic job expectations to achieve a satisfactory performance level rating for the teaching component. Failure to meet minimum expectations for effective teaching and instructional duties will result in an unsatisfactory performance level rating.

As with the evaluation of job effectiveness/productivity, SEI results and three additional components related to effective instructional delivery must be included when determining the performance level rating for the teaching component. Factors determining the performance level rating may include, but are not limited to:

• Actively participating in classes.
• Providing evidence that students meet course learning objectives.
• Being adequately prepared for classes to deliver effective instruction.
• Meeting at least the departmental, college, or University average SEI score during the period of evaluation.
• Achieving improved SEI scores by addressing areas for improvement as indicated in previous SEI results.
• Providing evidence of activities—outside of instruction—that assist students in meeting their academic goals.
• Maintaining appropriate office hours throughout the semester at different times of the day on different days of the week to be accessible to students.
• Creating and updating course syllabi that include required elements according to the University Syllabus Policy and college/department guidelines.
• Following the Exams or Student Learning Assessment Policy.
• Using technology to enhance instructional delivery and student engagement where appropriate.
• Posting syllabi on the learning management system or other electronic sites as required.
• Completing other duties as assigned.

Performance Level for the Scholarly Activity/Research Component

The performance level rating for the scholarly activity/research component 1) is based on the scholarly activities and research documented for the evaluation of job effectiveness/productivity and 2) must be indicated as satisfactory or unsatisfactory. A performance level rating of unsatisfactory must be assigned when 1) no activity is documented, 2) activity does not meet minimum expectations set by the University, college, and department, or 3) activity does not meet expectations set during the previous APR planning process.

Performance Level for the Service Component

The performance level rating for the service component 1) is based on the service activities documented for the evaluation of job effectiveness/productivity and 2) must be indicated as satisfactory or unsatisfactory. A performance level rating of unsatisfactory must be assigned when 1) no activity is documented, 2) activity does not meet minimum expectations set by the University, college, and department, or 3) activity does not meet expectations set during the previous APR planning process.

Overall Performance Level Rating of Satisfactory

To achieve an overall performance level rating of satisfactory, faculty must achieve a satisfactory rating in the teaching component and an additional satisfactory rating in one of the other two components (scholarly activity/research or service). An overall satisfactory performance level rating is considered a key factor when reviewing applications for tenure or promotion and determining merit pay, regardless of merit rank.

Overall Performance Level Rating of Unsatisfactory

At a minimum, each faculty member must meet basic job responsibilities and expectations as described in University policies and assigned by the department head. An unsatisfactory performance level rating indicates the need for improvement.

Overall Unsatisfactory Performance Level Rating for Non-Tenured Faculty

When an overall unsatisfactory performance level rating is earned, a non-tenured faculty member will be placed on a performance improvement plan and may not be considered for renewal of appointment.

Overall Unsatisfactory Performance Level Rating for Tenured Faculty

After either 1) two consecutive unsatisfactory reviews or 2) three unsatisfactory reviews in a five-year period, tenured faculty will be subject to mandatory remediation and will be placed on a performance improvement plan.

1. The performance improvement plan is developed by the department head in conjunction with the faculty member and dean and should include clear performance expectations, specific areas needing improvement, measurable goals, a detailed action plan, a timeline, support resources, planned periodic feedback, and consequences for not meeting the plan’s objectives. 
2. If the faculty member and department head cannot agree on the performance improvement plan, tenured faculty in the department will provide input and recommend a plan to the dean.
   1. For any provision of this procedure that requires participation by a group or committee of tenured faculty in the department, tenured faculty from outside the department shall be selected by the dean to participate in the process, if the number of department faculty is insufficient.
   2. Appointments of faculty from outside the department require the approval of the provost.
3. In cases where the faculty member, department head, and dean cannot agree on the performance improvement plan, the provost will review the proposed plan and determine the final provisions of the plan based on the recommendations by the department head, tenured faculty in the department, and the dean.
4. If the tenured faculty member has not achieved significant improvement in performance after a minimum of two years on the plan, a recommendation for dismissal may be made by the department head or dean.
5. A recommendation for dismissal will automatically trigger a review by tenured faculty in the department of the faculty member’s performance and remediation efforts.
6. Based on all recommendations, including that of tenured faculty in the department, the provost may recommend that the University president or their designees institute proceedings for removal for cause including proper due process.
7. In certain cases, the University president must exercise discretion as to whether to refer the matter of dismissal to a separate dismissal for cause. This may be done without reference to or at any time during the procedures described in this policy. (See Termination of Service Policy.)

Part 3: Merit Rankings

At the end of the evaluation process, merit rankings are assigned to all full-time faculty within each college.

1. Merit rankings and performance level ratings are determined independently of each other.
2. The job effectiveness/productivity score of the APR determines merit rankings for faculty within each college.
3. Merit ranking categories are directly related to the level of merit pay, if merit pay is funded.
4. Merit ranking categories, which are achieved on a competitive basis, are: 5=Outstanding, 4=Above Average, 3=Average, 2=Below Average, or 1=Unsatisfactory.
5. Each college should have no more than 10% of the faculty in merit category 5 and no more than 20% in merit category 4. Academic department heads are not included in the college-wide merit percentage ranking.

Overview and Process

Overview

Each college and/or department must have a written APR and evaluation plan, a collection instrument, instructions and a template for evaluating APR information, and a timeline, which is readily available to faculty. When developing the plan, deans and department heads are expected to set goals and objectives for their respective units and to document faculty input for the adopted plan.

Faculty must be informed of expectations for all APR components. When APR results of one year are discussed, expectations for the upcoming evaluation period should be communicated. Deans and department heads are expected to:

• Ensure new faculty are informed of evaluation policies and procedures upon employment.
• Ensure all faculty are informed of evaluation policies and procedures just prior to evaluations being conducted.

The APR is conducted each spring and is based on that academic year’s job performance (fall and spring semesters).

A faculty member must furnish their department head with documented material substantiating activities considered to be meritorious and/or indicating accountability for job expectations. SEI results are released to faculty as soon as official grading is completed each semester. Faculty members are responsible for timely submission and accuracy of the information submitted.

A faculty member may decline to submit written/documented material for the APR; however, the faculty member must state this option in writing to the department head. In these cases, the faculty member 1) must participate in SEIs, 2) will be evaluated solely on SEIs and the department head’s determination of performance level, and 3) will not be eligible for salary increases, tenure, or promotion.

Evaluation Procedure

1. The department head reviews all submitted materials and other relevant information regarding the faculty member’s job performance and combines quantitative and qualitative data, which may include the department head’s observations, measure of work ethic, and professional activities, to arrive at:
   1. Job effectiveness/productivity scores which are then ranked relative to peer performance in the department.
   2. The performance level rating of satisfactory or unsatisfactory for each of the components: teaching, scholarly activity/research, and service.
   3. The overall performance level rating of satisfactory or unsatisfactory.
2. As needed, the department head may discuss the preliminary job effectiveness/productivity score and the performance level ratings with individual faculty members.
3. The department head submits to the dean ranked job effectiveness/productivity scores and recommendations for performance level ratings for the department.
4. The dean evaluates all faculty performance, reviewing job effectiveness/productivity scores and recommendations for performance level ratings. The dean then ranks all college faculty by job effectiveness/productivity score and recommends merit ranking assignments.
   1. Full-time faculty (including directors/coordinators within the college) who are continuing service in the upcoming fiscal year are eligible in the merit ranking.
   2. Academic department heads are not included in the college-wide merit percentage ranking; deans determine merit category for the academic department heads in the college. Department heads are evaluated on a combination of elements to include administrative performance evaluation, teaching, service, and, to a limited degree, scholarly activity/research.
5. Deans and departments heads discuss job effectiveness/productivity scores, performance level ratings, and merit category assignments for faculty and department heads with the provost. After all results have been discussed with the provost, the Office of Academic Affairs sends job effectiveness/productivity scores, performance level ratings, and merit category assignments to each dean.
6. The dean provides the information to the department heads.
7. The department head meets with each faculty member to 1) discuss their APR report, which includes the finalized job effectiveness/productivity score, performance level ratings, and merit category assignment and 2) set expectations for the upcoming evaluation period. The APR report must be signed by the faculty member and the department head. The signed APR document is provided to the faculty member, and a copy of the APR report is placed in departmental personnel files. Only results of job effectiveness/productivity scores, overall performance level ratings, and merit rankings (not supporting documentation) are maintained in the Office of Academic Affairs.

Appeals

If the faculty member disagrees with any part of the department head or dean’s evaluation, within 10 calendar days of receiving the signed APR document, the faculty member must request a conference that includes all parties concerned (faculty member, department head, and dean) to attempt to resolve the issue.

If no resolution for an appealed APR is reached within the college, the faculty member may appeal to the provost within 10 calendar days of the conference held at the college level. If the faculty member does not agree with the provost’s recommendations, they may appeal to the ad hoc Merit and Promotion Council within 10 calendar days.

• The Council is appointed by the president and is composed of one tenured faculty member from each college and one from the library.
• At least one member of the Council must represent the Faculty Senate.

The Council will forward its recommendations, all applicable information, and the APR to the president, who will make a final ruling on the recommendations within a reasonable time, not to exceed 90 calendar days from the date of appeal to the provost.

Communication

New faculty are informed of evaluation policies and procedures upon employment, and all faculty are informed of evaluation policies and procedures prior to evaluations being conducted. This policy is distributed via the University Policies webpage.