E7.0

ANNUAL REVIEW OF FACULTY

A. Preamble

Rochester Institute of Technology is committed to promoting academic excellence. As stated in our mission, teaching, learning, and scholarship are our central enterprises, and effective teaching continues to be the hallmark of RIT.

This policy on Annual Review of Faculty establishes guidelines for the evaluation of the performance of each faculty member against established Institute criteria (B.2., below) and in accordance with the mission and goals of the department, college and Institute. The results of the review will be used to:

1. Encourage and foster continued professional development.
2. Provide part of the required documentation in the pre-tenure review process of tenure-track faculty.
3. Promote the improvement of individual performance.
4. Determine annual merit increments.

An underlying principle of this policy is that faculty evaluation and faculty development are closely related and work in concert to help faculty meet individual and institutional goals.

This policy assumes the dignity and academic freedom of individual faculty members, and its implementation shall be guided by mutual trust.

B. Review Process

1. All faculty at Rochester Institute of Technology will participate in an annual performance review.

2. The criteria for the review shall be consistent with the performance criteria in the Institute policies for tenure (E5.0) and promotion (E6.0); these criteria include effective teaching, professional and academic qualifications, professional activities, contributions to the Institute, and community activities. The application of specific criteria under these broad headings, and their weighting, may vary among academic units and among faculty members.

3. The performance categories for evaluating all faculty members shall be: Outstanding, Very Good, Satisfactory, Needs Improvement, and Unsatisfactory.

4. The time frame for the period of review shall be December 1st through November 30^th.

5. Each college's or academic unit's review process must include the following elements:

a. The faculty member's written self-evaluation and evidence of performance in the criteria specified above (B.2.).

b. As part of the self-evaluation, the faculty member's plan of work for the following year, and discussion on achievement of goals established in previous plans of work. The faculty member's plan of work for the following year, including how the performance criteria will be applied and weighted, shall be negotiated with the department chair and then be approved by the department chair and dean. The plan of work shall be available for inspection by members of the department. (Note: In all references to the department chair an alternative administrator may be substituted as appropriate.)

c. Standardized student evaluations as established by college policy. For non-tenured faculty these evaluations shall be conducted in all sections taught during the period of review. For tenured faculty they shall be conducted in at least one section of each course taught during the period of review.

6. Each faculty member shall receive an annual written evaluation from the department chair. The evaluation will place the faculty member in one of the five performance categories specified above (B.3.), and discuss the objective reasons for the placement. Faculty may be evaluated as "Needs Improvement" and "Unsatisfactory" only on the basis of objective criteria as applied to their own performance, and not on the basis of their relative performance vis à vis the performance of others in their academic unit.

7. Annual merit increments shall be determined on the basis of the performance review.

8. Faculty members who believe that this policy has been unfairly or improperly implemented in their regard are referred to the policies on Faculty Grievance (E24.0), Appeal Committee on Faculty Salaries (E14.0), and Discrimination and Harassment (C6.0).

C. Development

1. Each faculty member whose approved plan of work identifies areas of development which address the Institute's educational goals, or department, college or Institute strategic plans shall be eligible to apply for assistance from the Institute. Examples of assistance include collegial mentoring, opportunities to take courses, release time, financial assistance, tutoring, or supplies.

2. Each college will establish a Faculty Development Committee to dispense faculty development funds provided annually by the Institute. The funds will be distributed to the college committees in proportion to the number of tenured and tenure-track faculty in each college.

• Each college's Faculty Development Committee will consist of no fewer than three members, elected from and by the tenured and tenure-track faculty of the college.
• If a college has another committee whose membership complies with the specifications above, the faculty of the college may designate it as the Faculty Development Committee.
• Faculty members' proposals for funding must be accompanied by an evaluation of the proposal by the faculty member's department chair.
• If the dean of the college does not concur with an award made by the college's Faculty Development Committee, the dean shall communicate this objection to the committee. In situations where the dean and the committee cannot reach consensus regarding an award, the Provost will be the final arbiter.
• The dean of the college shall be responsible for the disbursement of faculty development awards.

Approved October 24, 1996

Revised May 15, 1997

Revised October 23, 1997