1.  Faculty members must be evaluated on an annual basis. Evaluations must be completed by April 1 based upon that entire academic year.  Each faculty member must be evaluated by the division head (or designated faculty evaluator) from that faculty member’s academic unit.

2. Each division’s system for evaluation must be consistent with MUW’s Promotion and Tenure review process, and in accordance with Policy Statements 1302, 1303, and 1304.   Criteria to be used during the evaluation include the following, with the greatest weight being given to the first criterion:

a.  Excellence in teaching and advising as evidenced by demonstrated knowledge of the individual's area of academic appointment, ability to help students discover that knowledge in substantive and meaningful ways, updating knowledge and skills, designing new courses, regularly revising existing courses, and university-wide outreach to students.

b. Quality and extent of scholarly and professional activities, which may include research, writing, performing and other creative works, publications, presenting papers, professional and scholarly services, activity in professional organizations, and grant activity to funding sources outside the University.

c. Quality and extent of service to the division and the entire University, which may include committee work; administrative duties, if assigned; involvement with student activities; and other means of maintaining and improving the ongoing life of the institution.  Working with other people is essential to the maintenance of a collegial environment; — therefore, professional ethics, cooperativeness, resourcefulness and responsibility will be considered, as will service to the community at large.

3.   The division head (or designated faculty evaluator) should work with the faculty to develop discipline-specific evaluation standards.  These standards should be formally conveyed at the beginning of the evaluation cycle. Each division should regularly assess the benefits and practical application of faculty evaluation tools and processes such as individual goal setting, self-reports and portfolios.

4. Faculty evaluations should include a qualitative or narrative assessment of the faculty member’s performance in the four areas specified in part 2 above and should conclude with a rating of each area as well as an overall performance rating.  The suggested ratings are:

SUPERIOR:   Greatly exceeds expectations
EXCELLENT:    Exceeds expectations
GOOD:  Meets expectations
FAIR:  Meets basic expectations but needs improvement for
further professional development
UNSATISFACTORY: Needs significant improvement to meet expectations

5.   Variations in the emphasis of teaching, scholarly and professional activities, and service specified in part 2 above can be negotiated between the division head and the faculty member.  Modifications should reflect the unit’s annual goals.  Any deviation from the weights specified in part 2 must be documented at the beginning of the evaluation cycle and should be confirmed by the Provost.   If administrative responsibilities that include a reduction in teaching load are assigned, performance during the administrative responsibilities will be included in the evaluation process.

6.  Evaluation of teaching must not rest exclusively upon course evaluations. Faculty members' responses to comments made in course evaluations must be considered when course evaluations are reviewed as a part of the faculty evaluation process.  Other criteria beyond course evaluations should be considered, and may include, but should not be limited to, comments from in-class peer reviews and/or comments from in-class assessment by the division head or designated faculty evaluator.

7. Evaluation of advising may include, but should not be limited to, items such as copies of advising materials created, office hours maintained, number of appointments scheduled, letters and e-mail correspondence from advisees, Advising Corps responsibilities, advising-related conferences attended, advising-related presentations and publications, awards related to advising, description of practices for advisees with excessive absences or academic probation, and description of common practices during advising sessions.

8. Each division should address and define standards for scholarly activities that may include research and/or creative works, and the specifics of service.  Additionally, each division should establish priorities and standards for service.  University and/or community service should reflect the faculty member’s expertise and responsibilities with Mississippi University for Women to be considered valid in the evaluation process.

9. As a community of teachers and scholars, MUW faculty members are expected to interact in an atmosphere of mutual respect with integrity, honesty, and regard for academic freedom.  They should work with each other responsively in day-to-day activities that further the mission of MUW and the success of students, colleagues and the University as a whole.
 
10.   Each evaluation should conclude with specific plans for improvement.  If an overall  rating of UNSATISFACTORY is awarded, a written development plan should be established.  As specified in PS 1312, three unsatisfactory reviews during a period of four years for a tenured faculty member may initiate the post-tenure review process.

11.  The Office of the Provost must provide training for faculty evaluators within each division.  Faculty evaluators must participate in refresher sessions provided by the Office of the Provost every three years.