1.      All faculty members must be evaluated on an annual basis.  Evaluations must be completed by April 30.  Each faculty member must be evaluated by the faculty member’s department chair/director.

2.      Each department’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 department, College, 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.      Faculty evaluations should include a qualitative or narrative assessment of the faculty member’s performance in the three 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:

DISTINGUISHED: Significantly exceeds standard expectations for faculty members, i.e. is truly distinguished among one’s peers.

EXCELLENT: Exceeds standard expectations for faculty members in some areas and meets standard expectations in the remaining areas.
GOOD: Meets standard expectations for faculty members.
MARGINAL: Needs improvement in some areas and meets standard expectations for faculty members in other areas.
UNSATISFACTORY: Needs significant improvement to meet standard expectations for faculty members, i.e. far from meeting standard expectations.

4.      Evaluation of teaching must not rest exclusively upon student 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.

5.      Each evaluation should conclude with specific plans and/or goals.  If an overall rating of MARGINAL or UNSATISFACTORY is awarded, a written development plan must 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.

Revised:  8/13/03, 2/6/07