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:
All full-time faculty participate in the annual performance review (APR) which includes three parts:
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.
The evaluation of job effectiveness/productivity consists of three weighted components:
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:
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.
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:
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.
At the end of the evaluation process, merit rankings are assigned to all full-time faculty within each college.
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:
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
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 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.
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.