(a) Annual Evaluations. The purpose of the annual evaluation is to assess and communicate the nature and extent of a faculty member’s performance of assigned duties consistent with the criteria specified in section 11.4 (Criteria). The performance of faculty, other than those who have received notice of non-reappointment under section 13.2 or those not entitled to receive notice of non-reappointment under section 13.2 will be evaluated at least once annually, and they will be advised of the academic term during which such evaluation will be made. Personnel decisions will take such annual evaluations into account, provided that such decisions need not be based solely on written faculty performance evaluations.
(b) Sustained Performance Evaluations. Tenured Professors and Associate Professors, University Librarians and Associate University Librarians and those positions identified at Appendix L will receive a Sustained Performance Evaluation in accordance with 11.3 (b) of this Article.
11.2 Sources and Methods of Evaluation.
(a) In preparing the annual evaluation, the person(s) responsible for evaluating the faculty member may consider, where appropriate, information from the following sources: immediate supervisor, peers, students, faculty member/self, other University officials who have responsibility for supervision of the faculty member, and individuals to whom the faculty member may be responsible in the course of a service assignment, including public school officials when a faculty member has a service assignment to the public schools.
(b) Student Evaluations. Section l 1.2(b) will go into effect on the first day of the Fall 2010 semester.
(1) Student evaluations are a regular part of faculty evaluation. Therefore, each Fall and Spring semester, faculty will ensure that student evaluations (using the standard University form) are administered for every course and every section taught. Such student evaluations, including narrative comments, will be provided to the Department Chair/Director so as to be included in the material considered for the faculty member’s annual evaluation.
(2) Considerations for Fair and Equitable Treatment.
a. Faculty members will have the right to rebut student evaluation comments and feedback by preparing a written rebuttal. There will be no limit to the length of the rebuttal. The rebuttal will be attached to the student evaluations in the faculty member’s master evaluation file. The rebuttal should address extenuating circumstances and other factors that might clarify how comments and numerical ratings should be interpreted by supervisors.
b. No personnel action will be taken on the basis of student narrative comments that have not been corroborated by evidence other than student evaluations.
c. Written comments from students will be considered in the context of other information submitted by the faculty member about teaching performance.
d. Beginning with the 2018-2019 academic year, faculty are required to submit at least one exemplar of teaching quality in addition to the standard university teaching assessment material. Exemplars should be consistent with indicators identified in the Tenure and Promotion guidelines, such as outcome assessment data, peer review observations, syllabi, assessment samples, etc. Acceptable supplemental exemplars may also be outlined in departmental/unit bylaws.
e. Summaries of student evaluations, including the narrative comments,will be provided to the faculty member at least fourteen (14) days in advance of the faculty member’s due date for annual evaluation materials. In the event that a faculty member receives his or her student evaluation data less than fourteen (14) days prior to this due date, the deadline for faculty submission of materials will be moved forward proportionally.
(c) Classroom Observation/Evaluation of Online Instruction. The faculty member, if assigned teaching duties, will be notified at least two (2) weeks in advance of the date, time, and place of any direct classroom observation or evaluation of online instruction made in connection with the faculty member’s annual evaluation. Upon notification, a three stage process will begin. First, a meeting will be set for the faculty member to present context/stage setting for the observation and, in the case of online instruction, the scope of the evaluation. Stage two will consist of the actual observations(s)/evaluation(s). The final stage will be a feedback cycle which includes written comment to the faculty member. If agreement on a date for the observation/evaluation is not reached, the faculty member will be notified at least two (2) weeks in advance of two (2) dates when two (2) observations/evaluations will be made.
(1) Nothing herein shall prohibit any chair/supervisor or Administration representative from visiting any classroom for investigative purposes when deemed appropriate by the University President or designee.
(a) Annual Evaluation.
(1) The proposed written annual evaluation, including the faculty member’s annual assignment which was furnished pursuant to section 10.3 (Annual Assignment) will be provided to the faculty member within forty-five (45) days after the end of the academic term during which such evaluation was made. The faculty member will be offered the opportunity to discuss the evaluation with the evaluator prior to its being finalized and placed in the faculty member’s evaluation file.
(2) The evaluation will be signed and dated by the person performing the evaluation and by the person being evaluated, who may attach a concise comment to the evaluation. A copy of the evaluation will be provided to the facultymember.
(3) The faculty member may request, in writing, a meeting with an administrator at the next higher level to discuss concerns regarding the evaluation which were not resolved in previous discussions with the evaluator.
(4) Each University college or department/unit will develop and maintain procedures by which to evaluate each faculty member according to criteria specified in section 11.4 (Criteria). These procedures will include the method for the distribution of any departmental merit salary increase funds specified that might become available. The faculty of each college or department/unit, who are eligible to vote in faculty governance, will participate in the development of these procedures and will recommend implementation by vote of a majority of at least a quorum of those faculty members.
a. The proposed procedures or revisions thereof will be reviewed by the President or representative to ensure that they are consistent with the mission and goals of the University and that they comply with this Agreement.
b. If the President or representative determines that the recommended procedures do not meet the conditions in section 11.3(a)(4), above, the proposal will be referred to the college or department/unit for revision with a written statement of reasons for non-approval. No merit salary increase funds will be provided to a college or department/unit until the procedures to be used have been approved by the President or representative.
c. Approved procedures, and revisions thereof, will be kept on file in the college or department/unit office. Faculty in each college or department/unit will be provided a copy of that college or department’s/unit’s current procedures for annual evaluation.
(5) Upon written request from the faculty member, the person(s) responsible for supervising and evaluating a faculty member will endeavor to assist the faculty member in correcting any major performance deficiencies reflected in the faculty member’s annual evaluation.
(b) Sustained Performance Evaluations.
(1) Beginning in the 2015-2016 academic year and continuing thereafter, the University shall conduct Sustained Performance Evaluations (SPE) on tenured faculty in the ranks of Professor and Associate Professor, those in the ranks of University Librarian and Associate University Librarian and the positions identified at Appendix L. The purpose of the Sustained Performance Evaluation is to assess the faculty member’s sustained performance and professional growth as of the date of the evaluation. The expectations for sustained performance shall be aligned with the qualifications for tenure in place at the time of the evaluation. For faculty in the ranks of University Librarian or Associate University Librarian, the expectation shall be aligned with the qualifications for promotion in place at the time of the evaluation.
(2) The Sustained Performance Evaluation shall be conducted in the tenured faculty member’s sixth (6th) year after receiving tenure and every sixth (6th) year thereafter and will evaluate the faculty member on his or her performance over the previous six (6) year period. Each faculty member may elect a one (1) year deferral once in his or her career at UWF. This would allow the sustained performance evaluation to be conducted in the seventh (7th) year. When a faculty member elects to utilize the one-time, one-year postponement of the SPE, the faculty member’s next, and all subsequent, SPEs will follow a six-year schedule from the one-year postponement. For University Librarians and Associate University Librarians this Sustained Performance Evaluation shall be conducted the sixth (6th) year after appointment or promotion to the rank of University Librarian or Associate University Librarian and every sixth (6th) year thereafter.
(3) If a faculty member has entered into the D.R.O.P. program or Phased Retirement Program and has an SPE scheduled within year 4 or 5 of D.R.O.P. or Phased Retirement, the SPE will be optional and at the discretion of the faculty member.
(4) There are three tiers for the Sustained Performance Evaluation.The attainment of Distinguished (Tier One) shall reflect distinction that clearly exceeds the University and departmental tenure standards and expectations in place at the time of the evaluation for excellence in quantity, quality or both. The attainment of Satisfactory (Tier Two) shall satisfy the University and departmental tenure standards and expectations in place at the time of the evaluation for excellence in quantity, quality or both. An evaluation that is Unsatisfactory (Tier Three) reflects performance that does not satisfy the University and departmental tenure standards and expectations in place at the time of the evaluation for excellence in quantity, quality or both. A Tier Three Rating will require the faculty member to enter into a formal Performance Improvement Plan. University Librarians and Associate University Librarians will be evaluated in the same manner except that the University and departmental promotion standards and expectations in place at the time of the evaluation will apply.
(5) A faculty member at the rank of Professor or University Librarian that receives a Tier One Distinguished rating on the Sustained Performance Evaluation shall receive a six thousand dollar ($6,000.00) increase in his or her base salary. A faculty member in the rank of Associate Professor or Associate University Librarian that receives a Tier One Distinguished rating on the Sustained Performance Evaluation shall receive a three thousand dollar ($3,000.00) increase in his or her base salary. A faculty member at the rank of Professor or University Librarian that receives a Tier Two Satisfactory rating on the Sustained Performance Evaluation shall receive a four thousand dollar ($4,000.00) increase in his or her base salary. A faculty member in the rank of Associate Professor or Associate University Librarian that receives a Tier Two Satisfactory rating on the Sustained Performance Evaluation shall receive a two thousand dollar ($2,000.00) increase in his or her base salary. An Unsatisfactory Sustained Performance Evaluation will result in no wage increase.
(6) If a faculty member goes up for promotion and SPE simultaneously in the same academic year, and both the promotion and the SPE are successful, the amount of the SPE tier salary increase will be at the rate of the new rank.
(7) On an annual basis the Provost will issue a memorandum identifying the faculty that will receive a Sustained Performance Evaluation for the following academic year. The Provost’s Memorandum will describe the process and timeline for the submission of materials by the faculty member.
(8) The materials to be submitted by the faculty member being evaluated will reflect the six years corresponding to the candidate’s SPE and will be the same as an application for tenure or in the case of a University Librarian or Associate University Librarian as an application for promotion. However, there shall be no internal or external letters of recommendation included in the submission. Evidence of sustained performance must be substantive and detailed with documentation.
(9) (a)The faculty member’s dossier for the Sustained Performance Evaluation shall be submitted to the faculty member’s Department Chair for review. The Chair shall make a recommendation to the Dean regarding whether tenure criteria were met. The Dean will ask the College Personnel Committee for a recommendation regarding whether tenure criteria were met. Neither the Chair nor the College Personnel Committee will make a recommendation as to the tier rating. The language used by the Department Chair and the College Personnel Committee in their respective evaluations will not be restricted as long as neither makes a tier rating. For the purposes of this section, “making a tier rating” shall be understood as an evaluator’s use of the explicit terms, “Tier One.” “Tier Two,” or “Tier Three” in reference to the SPE. The use of qualitative evaluative language by the Chair or College Personnel Committee outside of the terms, “Tier One,” “Tier Two,” or “Tier Three,” shall not constitute an implicit or explicit recommendation of tier rating.
(b) The Dean will make a separate review and recommendation to the Provost. The Dean’s recommendation will include a tier rating in accordance with paragraph (4) of this article. The recommendations of the Chair, College Personnel Committee and Dean will be submitted to the Provost who will conduct a separate review and make a final decision regarding whether the tenure criteria were met and the tier rating.
(10) Authorized leaves of absence may, under the provisions of Article 19 (LEAVES), be credited toward the period of the six (6) year evaluation period or may suspend the running of the period at the election of the faculty member.
(11) Faculty receiving “Unsatisfactory “ratings on a Sustained Performance Evaluation will enter into a Performance Improvement Plan. The Performance Improvement Plan will be developed by the Chair in concert with the Dean within thirty (30) days of the date of the evaluation. The faculty member will be provided with an opportunity to provide input into the Performance Improvement Plan. The Performance Improvement Plan shall outline each of the areas needing attention and improvement so that the Faculty member shall meet the tenure standards (or promotion standards for Librarians and Associate Librarians) in place at the time of the evaluation,upon successful completion of the Performance Improvement Plan. The Performance Improvement Plan shall provide specific performance targets and a time period for achieving the targets. The Performance Improvement Plan must be approved by the Provost. The Chair will meet regularly with the faculty member to review progress toward meeting the performance targets. However, it is the responsibility of the faculty member to attain the performance targets specified in the performance improvement plan within the specified time frame and demonstrate competency in his or her position. Upon successful completion of a Performance Improvement Plan within two (2) years of receipt of the unsatisfactory Sustained Performance Evaluation, the faculty member will receive a salary increase in the amount of corresponding “Tier II” increase. The faculty member’s next SPE will follow a new six-year schedule beginning with the academic year following the academic year of completion of the Performance Improvement Plan. Only the faculty members identified on the initial roll-out agreement (years 2015-2021) will be eligible to receive the “Tier II” increase upon the successful completion of the performance improvement plan as described above.
11.4 Criteria. The annual performance evaluation will be based upon assigned duties and will carefully consider the nature of the assignments, in terms, where applicable, of:
(a) Teaching effectiveness, including effectiveness in presenting knowledge, information, and ideas by means or methods such as lecture, discussion, assignment and recitation, demonstration, laboratory exercise, practical experience, and direct consultation with students. The evaluation will include consideration of effectiveness in imparting knowledge and skills, and effectiveness i n stimulating students’ critical thinking and/or creative abilities, the development or revision of curriculum and course structure, and adherence to accepted standards of professional behavior in meeting responsibilities to students. The evaluator may take into account class notes, syllabi, student exams and assignments, and any other materials relevant to the faculty member are teaching assignment.
(b) The teaching evaluation must take into account any relevant materials submitted by the faculty member, including the results of peer evaluations of teaching, and may not be based solely on student evaluations when this additional information has been made available to the evaluator.
(c) Contribution to the discovery of new knowledge, development of new educational techniques, and other forms of creative activity. Evidence of research and other creative activity will include, but not be limited to, published books; articles and papers in professional journals; musical compositions, paintings, sculpture; works of performing art; papers presented at meetings of professional societies; and research and creative activity that has not yet resulted in publication , display, or performance.
(d) The evaluation will include consideration of the faculty member’sproductivity, including the quality and quantity of what has been done during the year, and of the faculty member’s research and other creative programs and contributions; and recognition by the academic or professional community of what is done.
(e) Public service that extends professional or discipline-related contributions to the community; the State, including public schools; and the national and international community. This public service includes contributions to scholarly and professional organizations and governmental boards, agencies, and commissions that are beneficial to such groups and individuals.
(f) Participation in the governance processes of the institution through significant service on committees, councils, and senates, beyond that associated with the expected responsibility to participate in the governance of the institution through participation in regular departmental or college meetings.
(g) Other assigned University duties, such as advising, counseling, supervision of interns, and academic administration, or as described in a Position Description, if any, of the position held by the faculty member.
11.5 Proficiency in Spoken English. No faculty member will be evaluated as deficient in oral English language skills unless proved deficient in accordance with the appropriate procedures and examinations established by Florida law and Board rule for testing such deficiency.
(a) Faculty involved in classroom instruction, other than in courses conducted primarily in a foreign language, found by the supervisor, as part of the annual evaluation, to be potentially deficient in English oral language skills, will be tested in accordance with appropriate procedures and examinations established by statute and rule cited above for testing such skills. No reference to an alleged deficiency will appear in the annual evaluation or in the personnel file of a faculty member who achieves a satisfactory examination score determining proficiency in oral English as specified in the rule (currently “50” or above on the Test of Spoken English).
(b) Faculty who score at a specified level on an examination established by statute and rule cited above for testing oral English language skills (“45” on the Test of Spoken English), may continue to be involved in classroom instruction up to one (1) semester while enrolled in appropriate English language instruction, as described in paragraph (d), below, provided the appropriate administrator determines that the quality of instruction will not suffer. Only such faculty members who demonstrate, on the basis of examinations established by statute or rule, that they are no longer deficient in oral English language skills may be involved in classroom instruction beyond one (I ) semester.
(c) Faculty who score below a minimum score on an examination established by statute and rule for determining proficiency in oral English (currently “45” on the Test of Spoken English) will be assigned appropriate non-classroom duties for the period of oral English language instruction provided by the University under paragraph (d), below, unless during the period of instruction the faculty member is found, on the basis on an examination specified above, to be no longer deficient in oral English language skills. In that instance, the faculty member will again be eligible for assignment to classroom instructional duties and will not be disadvantaged by the fact of having been determined to be deficient in oral English language skills. It is the responsibility of each faculty member who is found, as part of the annual evaluation, to be deficient in oral English language skills by virtue of scoring below the satisfactory score on an examination established by statute and rule for determining such proficiency (see paragraph (a)), to take appropriate actions to correct these deficiencies. To assist the faculty member in this endeavor, the University will provide appropriate English language instruction without cost to such faculty members for a period consistent with their length of appointment and not to exceed two (2) consecutive semesters. The time the faculty member spends in such instruction will not be considered part of the individual assignment or time worked, nor will the faculty member be disadvantaged by the fact of participation in such instruction.
(d) If the University determines, as part of the annual evaluation, that one (1) or more administrations of a test to determine proficiency in oral English language skills is necessary, in accordance with statute and rule and this section, the University will pay the expenses for up to two (2) administrations of the test. The faculty member will pay for additional testing that may be necessary.
11.6 Employee Assistance Programs. Neither the fact of a faculty member’s participation in an employee assistance program nor information generated by participation in the program will be used as evidence of a performance deficiency within the evaluation process described in this Article, except for information relating to a faculty member’s failure to participate in an employee assistance program consistent with the terms to which the faculty member and the University have agreed.