Board of Regents Policy Manual, Section 22.214.171.124
Each University System of Georgia (USG) institution shall establish definite and stated criteria, consistent with Board of Regents’ policies, the Academic and Student Affairs Handbook and the statutes of the institution, against which the performance of each faculty member will be evaluated. The criteria shall include evaluation of instruction, student success activities, research/scholarship, and service as is appropriate to the faculty member’s institution, school or college, and department, and responsibilities. The criteria shall be submitted to the USG Chief Academic Officer for review and approval.
Each institution, as part of its evaluative procedures, will utilize a system of faculty evaluations by students, with the improvement of teaching effectiveness and student learning as the main focus of these student evaluations. The evaluation procedures may also utilize a system of peer evaluations, with emphasis placed on the faculty member’s professional development across the scope of their responsibilities. In those cases, in which a faculty member’s primary responsibilities do not include teaching, the evaluation should focus on excellence in those areas (e.g., research, administration, and elements of student success) where the individual’s major responsibilities lie. While a faculty member’s performance evaluation may be deemed as “Not Meeting Expectations” for other reasons, they must be so assessed if a majority of their work responsibilities are assessed as “Not Meeting Expectations.”
Each University System of Georgia (USG) institution shall conduct in-depth pre-tenure reviews of all untenured, tenure-track faculty in their third year of progress toward tenure with a focus on the criteria established for promotion and tenure, emphasizing excellence in teaching and involvement in student success activities. The institution shall develop pre-tenure review policies, as well as any subsequent revisions.
The result of the faculty member’s annual evaluations will be utilized as a part of subsequent pre-tenure and post-tenure reviews as well as retention, promotion, and tenure decisions.
Also see USG policy 8.3.5 Evaluation of Personnel and USG Academic and Student Affairs Handbook (ASAH) sections 4.7 Post-Tenure Review and 4.8 Evaluation of Faculty.
At Georgia Tech, the primary purpose of all performance evaluations is to support each faculty member’s career development and performance. Each faculty member shall be evaluated annually. In addition, see section 5.1 for discussion of Academic Freedom, as well as other relevant sections of the Handbook for information that support annual evaluations.
Annual performance evaluation will be based solely upon rubrics established by the faculty member’s unit. Evaluative rubrics, and any changes to these rubrics must be created jointly by faculty and administrators within the framework of faculty governance. Evaluative rubrics, and any changes to these rubrics, must be approved by a vote of the unit’s faculty using any applicable unit-level faculty governance procedures.
The annual evaluation will encompass teaching, undergraduate/graduate student success activities, scholarship and creative activities, academic achievement, and professional service to the Institute or community. The annual evaluation will consider continuous professional growth and reflect the faculty member’s workload percentages, responsibilities, and role. Examples of these activities are contained in 3.3.7.
Faculty members are generally subject to default evaluation criteria based on their role. These evaluation criteria must accurately reflect the faculty member’s workload allocation and job duties. If the faculty member’s duties or goals shift, faculty members, in collaboration with their supervisor, may propose a recalibration of applicable criteria for their role each year. Supervisor approval is required for criteria that differ from the default criteria for a role. The anticipated criteria for the next evaluation cycle must be established in writing during the annual conference with the supervisor at the beginning of the cycle and must accurately reflect the faculty member’s workload allocation and duties.
Faculty Member’s Self-Evaluation
The faculty member will conduct a self-evaluation and provide documentation and materials for the annual evaluation. Because the faculty’s work is ongoing, cumulative, and long-term in nature, faculty members will report and evaluate themselves annually within the context of the previous three years of performance during each annual evaluation, with emphasis on the most recent year’s performance.
In the event that a faculty member deviates from the evaluation criteria for an evaluation cycle, the faculty member should provide the reasoning, alternative pursuit(s), and propose substitute criteria to allow the supervisor to understand and provide feedback on the faculty member’s performance.
The faculty member’s appropriate supervisor or unit designee will respond to the faculty member’s self-evaluation and assess each criterion as:
Does Not Meet Expectations
Rubrics are discussed in 126.96.36.199.1. Each unit is responsible for developing its own rubrics through the framework of faculty governance.
The supervisor’s overall evaluation also must indicate whether the faculty member is making satisfactory progress toward the next level of review (or promotion) appropriate to their rank, tenure status, and career stage.
A unit may elect a committee of peers to annually assess faculty in addition to the supervisory assessment. If such a committee annually assesses faculty, the committee will complete its evaluations prior to the supervisor’s and will share those results with the supervisor. Supervisors should consider the peer committee’s input when completing their own evaluations and should share both evaluations with the faculty member. In the event that the committee and supervisor score the faculty member differently, the supervisor's Likert scores will govern, and the supervisor's scores and comments as well as the committee's scores and comments will be a permanent part of the faculty member's annual review to provide appropriate context.
If a unit utilizes a unit committee for annual performance evaluation, the committee must be elected annually by a vote of the faculty members within the unit. The committee will have a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of twelve (12) members. Units may establish committee size by faculty vote. The unit’s Faculty Advisory Committee (FAC) or equivalent for non-academic units shall conduct the election and be the final arbiter of its results.
Annual Evaluation Conference, Signed Acknowledgements, and Responses
The appropriate supervisor will discuss with the faculty member in a scheduled conference the content of that faculty member’s annual written evaluation and their progression towards achieving future milestones.
The supervisor’s written response to the faculty member’s self-evaluation must be provided to the faculty member within 60 calendar days of the self-evaluation’s due date. The faculty member must acknowledge receipt of the supervisor’s response with a signature. The faculty member will have the opportunity to respond, in writing, within 30 calendar days of the date of the supervisor’s evaluation. Evaluations must notify a faculty member of their right to respond and to request the assistance of the Faculty Status and Grievance Committee if the faculty member believes that their rights have been invaded or ignored. If the faculty member submits a response, the supervisor must provide a written reply within 10 business days of the faculty member’s response. The supervisor’s reply must note changes, if any, in the annual written evaluation made as a result of either the conference or the faculty member’s written response.
Performance Remediation Plans
If the faculty member’s performance is evaluated as “1 - Does Not Meet Expectations” or “2 - Needs Improvement” on any of the criteria, the supervisor and faculty member will develop a Performance Remediation Plan (PRP) to remediate their performance during the remainder of the evaluation period. The PRP must be specific, reasonable, achievable within the time frame, and reflect essential job duties of the faculty member. A PRP must also reflect the timing of a faculty member’s contract; remediation cannot be required of a faculty member outside of the contract period.
If the faculty member elects not to collaborate with the supervisor, the supervisor will create an appropriate PRP. In the event of a disagreement between the faculty member and the supervisor concerning the PRP, the plan will be brought before the unit’s elected post-tenure review committee (or similar elected committee) for mediation and resolution.
The supervisor will meet with the faculty member twice during the fall semester and twice during the spring semester to review progress, to document additional needs and available resources, and to plan accomplishments for the upcoming time period. After each meeting, the supervisor will summarize the meeting and indicate if the faculty member is on track to successfully complete the PRP. The supervisor must advise the faculty member of the possible consequences for failure to meet the expectations of the PRP during each quarterly meeting.
Annual Evaluation Immediately After Performance Remediation Plan
If the supervisor evaluates a non-tenure track faculty member as “1 - Does Not Meet Expectations” or “2 - Needs Improvement” on any evaluation criterion in the next consecutive annual evaluation, the supervisor may propose a subsequent PRP or take other actions as appropriate.
If the supervisor evaluates a tenured faculty member as “1 - Does Not Meet Expectations” or “2 - Needs Improvement” on any evaluation criterion in two consecutive annual evaluations, the supervisor will recommend a corrective post-tenure review. A recommendation for a corrective post-tenure review, and the accompanying annual evaluation, must be reviewed by the unit’s elected post-tenure review committee. If the post-tenure review committee does not agree with the recommendation for a corrective post-tenure review, the matter will be referred to the Dean (or analogous administrator) for determination. If the Dean (or analogous administrator) determines that a corrective post-tenure review is warranted, the committee will submit a written statement of dissent to accompany the Dean’s decision. For untenured, tenure-track faculty, see section 3.3.3 Administrative Reviews.
Pursuant to 3.1.9, members of the faculty who believe their rights, under the aforementioned provisions, have been invaded or ignored shall have the right to request consideration of their case by the Faculty Status and Grievance Committee.