Instructional Faculty

Faculty members with a tenure line, unclassified academic staff, or multi-year appointment shall have their performance evaluated in relation to their duties in writing at least once annually. Annual evaluation procedures are unit-specific and approved by the dean and the Provost. They should include all areas of responsibility for a faculty member as appropriate for the position and as outlined in the allocation of effort in each employee’s appointment notice or updated position description.

Annual performance evaluations are primarily intended to communicate to an assessment of a faculty member's performance of assigned duties by providing written constructive feedback that will assist in improving their performance, expertise, and to convey performance relative to articulated performance metrics related to the appropriate disciplinary career trajectory. Annual evaluations are intended to be developmental and create an accurate record of performance. Evaluative criteria, procedures, timelines, and instruments must be provided in writing to all faculty members with appropriate advance notice and must align with the workload guidelines adopted by each academic unit, as described in Article 16 of the collective bargaining agreement.

The evaluation and goal-setting period shall be on the calendar year or as otherwise required by the Board of Regents. The evaluation period for the products of scholarly activity may be longer than one year if specified in an approved Unit Annual Evaluation Plan. The unit should define a period of review appropriate to scholarly standards in an approved Unit Annual Evaluation Policy. For multi-year goals, activities and progress must be documented and measured on an annual basis.

Though unit-level procedures and standards may include some variation to account for unit and academic disciplinary differences, all processes should align with the university calendar and overall submission format and procedures for annual performance evaluations as communicated by the Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor or designee, including the university system utilized for submission, as well as the repository for final required documentation. 

Evaluations shall use the rating categories of excellent, very good, good, marginal, and poor as defined below. These ratings are assigned relative to what would be considered satisfactory performance in the bargaining unit member's assigned areas of responsibility, not relative to the performance of other employees. 

The standard expectation for the annual performance appraisal process is good. In determining what constitutes annual performance that is good, a number of variables must be taken into consideration. These variables include the goals and objectives of the unit, and the needs of the unit as determined by the unit leader in keeping with academic disciplinary standards, as well as the academic interests, expertise, and goals of the faculty member. While the standard expectation for a single annual performance evaluation is a rating of good, a faculty member’s sustained performance as assessed during promotion and tenure should meet the applicable standard for promotion as defined in Article 19, Promotion and Tenure of the collective bargaining agreement.

A rating shall be assigned in each area of responsibility, as well as for overall performance. The overall performance rating shall be based on the aggregate of the assessments of the areas of responsibility, and weighted consistent with the bargaining unit member’s annual workload allocation of effort and assigned duties and the unit’s Annual Evaluation Policy.  

Excellent: Performance substantially exceeds academic disciplinary and unit expectations in their assigned areas of responsibility. 

Very Good: Performance exceeds academic disciplinary and unit expectations in their assigned areas of responsibility. 

Good: Performance meets academic disciplinary and unit expectations in their assigned areas of responsibility.  

Marginal: Performance falls below academic disciplinary and unit expectations in assigned areas of responsibility. 

Poor: Performance that falls significantly below academic disciplinary and unit expectations in assigned areas of responsibility. 

The annual performance evaluation shall be based on the performance of assigned duties and shall consider the nature of the assignments and quality of performance in terms of each of the following areas of responsibility that are applicable to the faculty member's duties: 

1. Instructional workload and contributions to instructional activities. The evaluation shall consider an instructor’s contribution to the course(s) they teach, including, as applicable to the individual bargaining unit member: the clarity and relevance of course goals and the alignment of those goals with course content; richness of curricular materials; instructional (or teaching) practices used to engage students and promote learning; substantive, regular and frequent feedback on assignments; the class climate and opportunities for substantive interaction created by the instructor; attention to student achievement of learning outcomes; and commitment to continuous improvement based on student learning and feedback. The evaluation shall also consider instructional activities beyond course-level teaching, including but not limited to mentoring and advising undergraduate and/or graduate students, and involvement in teaching service, scholarship and community. The unit-level evaluation plan must list which documents and/or information the employee is required to submit as part of the annual evaluation; the employee may also opt to submit other supporting information and materials (such as a reflective narrative, examples of student work, syllabi, etc.). While Student Surveys of Teaching are a required component of annual performance assessment, they are only one component. Multiple sources of information, not just student evaluations, should be used to assess teaching effectiveness. 
2. Contribution to the discovery of new knowledge and other forms of research, scholarship, discovery and creative activity. Evidence of research/scholarship/creative activity may include, but is not limited to, books, book chapters, articles or papers in scholarly or professional journals, musical compositions, works of visual art, artistic performances, presentations in scholarly conferences, and funded grant activities. The evaluation shall consider the quality and quantity of the bargaining unit member's contributions during the evaluation period in keeping with academic disciplinary standards. 
3. Performance of assigned professional duties (e.g., librarianship, museum and collections work). The evaluation shall include consideration of the effectiveness of performance activities. 
4. Service. Service includes service to the academic discipline, the university, or the unit, as well as public service (as it extends professional or discipline-related contributions to the community, the state, and/or the national or international community). Service to the university and/or department includes, but is not limited to, significant participation on unit and university committees, councils, and senates; service to KU through UAKU for UAKU officers. Public service and service to the academic discipline include, but are not limited to, contributions to scholarly and professional conferences and organizations, governmental boards, agencies, and commissions that are beneficial to such groups and individuals.
5. Other assigned university duties, such as program administrative duties. 

Lecturers on multi-year contracts will undergo a comprehensive evaluation at the end of their contract period and prior to the renewal of their contract. Those in the Teaching Professor and Professor Practice series will undergo a comprehensive evaluation at the time of consideration for contract renewal. 

A Comprehensive Evaluation is not required for appointments not being considered for renewal.  

Each unit will adopt comprehensive evaluation procedures that align with Article 16, Workload and Article 17, Evaluations of the collective bargaining agreement. The supervisor will notify the instructional faculty members scheduled for comprehensive evaluation no later than March 15 in the spring semester preceding the academic year of review. 

Copies of annual evaluations, along with a narrative about how the instructional faculty member has or has not addressed feedback in response to those evaluations, may form part of a comprehensive performance review. If in the Comprehensive Review, the instructional faculty member is rated as poor or marginal in one or more areas of responsibility, they may request a review by a faculty committee designated to hear such matters in the college, school, libraries or Office of Research.

A rating shall be assigned in each area of responsibility, as well as for overall performance. The overall performance rating shall be based on the aggregate of the assessments of the areas of responsibility, and weighted consistent with the bargaining unit member’s annual workload allocation of effort and assigned duties.  

Excellent: Performance substantially exceeds academic disciplinary and unit expectations in their assigned areas of responsibility. 

Very Good: Performance exceeds academic disciplinary and unit expectations in their assigned areas of responsibility. 

Good: Performance meets academic disciplinary and unit expectations in their assigned areas of responsibility.  

Marginal: Performance falls below academic disciplinary and unit expectations in assigned areas of responsibility. 

Poor: Performance that falls significantly below academic disciplinary and unit expectations in assigned areas of responsibility. 

Positive periodic evaluations may be grounds for merit-based salary increases (where allowed by the collective bargaining agreement) and contribute to promotion or advancement to longer-term appointments, as part of significant and sustained positive performance, in alignment with university standards, unit criteria, and unit need. A negative periodic review may be a basis for the initiation of a Performance Improvement Plan or a Differential Allocation of Effort agreement or, in cases of significant and repeated deficiencies, may be a basis for non-reappointment or non-renewal. 

Instructional Faculty are eligible for promotion within their category, except for Instructor and Visiting Professor job titles which do not have promotional tracks. Instructional Faculty eligible for promotion are not required to request promotion when they are eligible; they may request promotion in a later year or forgo it altogether. Opting not to apply for promotion has no bearing on future re-appointments. For Instructional Faculty eligible for promotion, progression in rank and title will follow the processes and procedures for promotion developed by the school/department, endorsed by the Dean, approved by the Provost or their designee, filed with the Office of Faculty Affairs, and must be in alignment with University Guidelines and the terms of the collective bargaining agreement.  

Guidelines for promotion review will be provided to units by the Office of the Provost and must include the following minimum requirements: 

1. Promotion in rank must be preceded by a comprehensive performance review, which is normally held every three years of an appointment and prior to the offer of another limited term appointment.
2. A rating scale of: Distinction, Meritorious, Adequate, Unsatisfactory.
3. Procedures for promotion and rank must adhere to existing policy (such as the “Teaching Professor Job Title Series Guidelines” and “Professor of the Practice” policies from the Office of Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor) except where those are superseded by the collective bargaining agreement. 
4. The criteria for promotion must reflect the allocation of effort, job description, and duties as expressed in an employee’s appointment letter or current position description and must align with the university workload standards and the guidelines adopted by each academic unit, as described in the collective bargaining agreement.
5. Department procedures must clearly indicate: 
   1. Unit-defined criteria for promotion; 
   2. The timeline at which each step of the comprehensive review is carried out; 
   3. What documents and information the candidate for promotion must submit; 
   4. Who conducts the comprehensive review or how the composition of review committees is determined (in situations where the review goes through multiple levels or committees, the unit-level procedures must specify this for each level of review); 
   5. What happens in the case of a favorable recommendation, and in the case of a negative recommendation, including appeal rights and the appeal process.

Lecturers: 

The Lecturer job series includes promotion from Lecturer to Senior Lecturer. Lecturers normally become eligible for promotion from Lecturer to Senior Lecturer after the equivalent of at least six cumulative years of full-time service as a Lecturer.  Promotion may occur earlier than the completion of six years, with approval from the unit supervisor and the Dean. The University standard to be eligible for promotion for lecturers is to meet the role as defined by the unit with a rating of “Meritorious,” in the area of teaching, with standards for all other areas of responsibility set by the unit criteria, but at least “Adequate.”  

Lecturer promotions follow processes and procedures developed by the school/department, endorsed by the Dean, approved by the Provost or their designee, filed with the Office of Faculty Affairs, and must align with University Guidelines and the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. The titles Multi-Term Lecturer and Online Lecturer will no longer be used for new appointments, except that existing Multi-Term Lecturers who opt not to seek promotion or conversion to Senior Lecturer will retain their title until the end of their current appointment. 

Lecturers who have the equivalent of at least six (6) cumulative years of full-time service at KU with a demonstrated record of excellence in teaching will be eligible for promotion to Senior Lecturer through unit procedures and based on unit criteria, with commensurate pay increases, unless they opt not to seek promotion, in which case they will retain their current title until the end of their current appointment regardless of rank. 

Teaching Professors: 

The Teaching Professor job series includes promotion from Assistant Teaching Professor to Associate Teaching Professor, and promotion from Associate Teaching Professor to Teaching Professor. Promotion normally occurs after six years of service at a given level but may occur earlier with approval from the unit supervisor, Dean, and the Office of Faculty Affairs. Comprehensive evaluation is required at the time of promotion. The university standard to be eligible for promotion for teaching professors is a rating of “Meritorious” in the area of teaching, with standards for all other areas of responsibility set by the unit criteria, but at least “Adequate.” 

Promotion for the Teaching Professor series will follow processes and procedures developed by the school/department, endorsed by the Dean, approved by the Provost or their designee, filed with the Office of Faculty Affairs, and must be in alignment with University Guidelines and the collective bargaining agreement.

Professors of the Practice:  

The Professor of the Practice job series includes promotion from Assistant Professor of the Practice to Associate Professor of the Practice, and promotion from Associate Professor of the Practice to Professor of the Practice. Promotion normally occurs after six years of service at a given level, but may occur earlier with approval from the unit supervisor, Dean, and the Office of Faculty Affairs. A comprehensive evaluation is required at the time of promotion. The university standard to be eligible for promotion for professors of the practice is a rating of “Meritorious” in the area of teaching, with standards for all other areas of responsibility set by the unit criteria, but at least “Adequate.” 

Promotion for the Professor of Practice series will follow processes and procedures developed by the school/department, endorsed by the Dean, approved by the Provost or their designee, filed with the Office of Faculty Affairs, and must be in alignment with University Guidelines and the collective bargaining agreement.