Board Policy 405.1 – Appointments, Promotion, Tenure, Non-Reappointment, And Dismissal Of Faculty
V. Annual Review
An annual review of the work and status of each faculty member shall be made on the basis of assigned duties and according to criteria and procedures required herein. Each year the chief academic officer of each campus shall (a) require of each chairperson an assessment of the performance of all faculty members in the academic unit, including an identification of all faculty development needs and of all problems in performance of faculty, and (b) in consultation with the Chancellor (or chief executive officer), take steps designed to insure compliance on that campus with all criteria and procedures for annual reviews.
College of Health Professions Procedure
A. Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty
| Required Criteria | How CHP Meets this Requirement |
|---|---|
| Provided a faculty member is in substantial compliance with applicable university policies and legal requirements, the annual review of each faculty member shall provide the primary basis for the chairperson’s recommendations relating to salary, promotion, granting of tenure, successive appointment, non-reappointment, and dismissal. | Where chair/director input is obtained: • Salary – budget meeting • Promotion & Tenure – chair/director approval obtained in the CHP Promotion and Tenure Database • Reappointment – budget meeting • Non-reappointment – budget meeting with discussion continuing in chair/director’s regular meetings with dean and associate deans. |
| Furthermore, this review is to provide guidance and assistance to all faculty in their professional development and academic responsibilities in the areas of teaching, scholarly and creative activity, and service. | The CHP annual performance evaluation tool provides guidance and assistance in professional development, teaching, service and scholarly activity. Annual and longer-term goals are included. Performance improvement goals are included at the prevue of the chair/director/supervisor. |
| Criteria and procedures for an annual review of all tenured and tenure-track faculty shall be adopted by each campus. As a general practice, the faculty, through its governance structure, will initiate the process of preparing such criteria and procedures, on its own or at the request of the Chancellor (or chief executive officer) of the campus. The deans and chief academic officer of the campus will then have an opportunity to give their advice regarding these criteria and procedures. Thereafter, the criteria and procedures must be submitted to the Chancellor (or chief executive officer) of the campus and the President for approval. More detailed criteria and procedures may be recommended by the faculty and chairperson of each academic unit; these criteria and procedures must be submitted to the dean, the chief academic officer of the campus, the Chancellor (or chief executive officer) of the campus, and the President for approval. | Criteria and Procedures: • Annual budget meeting with each chair/director • Regular meetings of the chair/director and dean and associate deans • Annual evaluation of the chair/director by their faculty • Annual self-assessment of one’s performance • Annual assessment of faculty performance by the supervisor (chair/director/dean) • Course evaluations deployed each semester |
All procedures for annual reviews adopted by a campus shall include provision for and details for implementation of the following:
| Required Criteria | How CHP Meets this Requirement |
|---|---|
| 1. Within a reasonable time after the beginning of the first appointment of each faculty member: written notification to the faculty member of the criteria, procedures, and instruments currently in use in assessing performance; | Notice of annual performance assessment provided in letter of offer along with a copy of the CHP Promotion and Tenure Guide Annual self-assessment spreadsheet provided to faculty member. Faculty sets weights for evaluation teaching, service, and scholarly activity. Weight for UAMS core competencies is preset at 20%. Faculty set current year goals and have opportunity to set longer term goals often geared toward professional development. Performance improvement goals may be required if determined by the supervisor. |
| 2. Within a reasonable time after the beginning of each academic year: written notification to each faculty member of that year’s assignments, review schedule, and the criteria, procedures, and instruments to be used that year; | In consultation with the supervisor, faculty set evaluation weights by category and goals for the upcoming academic year utilizing the instrument to be used to assess performance before the academic year begins on July 1. |
| 3. Reasonable opportunity for each faculty member to submit any relevant material documenting his or her professional performance to be considered in the annual review; | Materials made available by the college include course evaluations and chair/director evaluations completed by their faculty. An updated CV is available. Faculty may submit other documents as desired or by request of supervisor. |
| 4. Peer evaluation, made fully available to the faculty member and those conducting the review; | The supervisor completes the Faculty Peer Review Table in collaboration with the faculty member. |
| 5. Student evaluation of teaching, made fully available to the faculty member and those conducting the review; | Available on Blackboard to faculty. Also posted to Sharepoint where chairs/directors and dean and associate dean have access to all course evaluations. |
| 6. Prior to the chairperson’s completion of the annual evaluation (including any recommendations based on the evaluation) in any year: (a) a meeting between the chairperson and faculty member to discuss all issues relating to the review, (b) the chairperson’s intended evaluation and recommendation(s), and (c) a reasonable opportunity for the faculty member to submit a written response to the annual evaluation (including any recommendations), which will to be forwarded to each subsequent level of review; | Faculty complete a self-assessment that is forwarded to the supervisor. The supervisor completes their evaluation of the faculty member. The evaluation is shared with the faculty member and a meeting is held to discuss the current year’s evaluation and to discuss the upcoming year’s goals. Faculty have the opportunity to submit a written response. |
| 7. As long as a faculty member is employed by the University and for at least three years thereafter: maintenance of annual review forms, recommendations, associated narratives, and all other relevant materials used in or resulting from the annual reviews of that faculty member; | Documents pertaining to faculty annual evaluations are maintained by each program. Documents pertaining to annual evaluation of chairs/directors who report to the dean are maintained in the dean’s office. |
| 8. Availability to each faculty member of all writings used in or resulting from the annual reviews of that faculty member. | Documents are available to all faculty through their chair/program director or dean’s office. |
| 9. In order to maintain a high quality and productive educational environment, annual review procedures adopted at the campus level must provide for prompt, meaningful and effective means of addressing unsatisfactory faculty performance. Effective July 1, 2019, campus procedures shall require that any tenured faculty member who receives an overall unsatisfactory performance rating be placed on a remediation plan. The remediation plan shall be developed by the faculty member’s academic unit in consultation with the faculty member and shall include remedial measures designed to address the overall performance deficiencies, with the expectation that carrying out the plan will lead to an overall satisfactory performance rating. If, in the next annual review following an overall unsatisfactory performance rating, the faculty member fails either to attain an overall satisfactory performance rating or to demonstrate meaningful progress in remediating the overall performance deficiencies, the faculty member may be issued a notice of dismissal on twelve months’ notice as provided for in this policy, and subject to the procedures contained in Section IV.C. | Faculty with unsatisfactory performance work with their chair/director to develop Performance Improvement Goals that are included in the next academic year’s performance assessment tool. |
B. Non-Tenure-Track Faculty
Faculty who are not in tenure-track positions shall be evaluated by procedures adopted by each campus. Such procedures shall provide guidance and assistance to faculty in their professional development and academic responsibilities. To the extent applicable and as fully as practicable, the criteria referenced in V. A. (especially with regard to peer and student evaluations) should be utilized in developing such campus procedures. Any campus procedure developed must be submitted to the Chancellor (or chief executive officer) of the campus and to the President for approval.
Attachment A: CHP Annual Performance Evaluation Timeline
| Date | Task |
|---|---|
| January – February | Budget Meeting – salary discussions, reappointment, non-reappointment |
| March- April | Reappointment decisions confirmed with chairs/directors at regularly meeting with dean |
| April 15 | Annual Performance Evaluation sent to chairs/directors for self-assessment Faculty evaluation of chair/director surveys sent to core faculty |
| May 1 | Annual Performance Evaluation sent to faculty for self-assessment |
| May 15 -30 | Spring course evaluations posted to Sharepoint |
| June 1 | Reappointment Letters Sent electronically with copy to chair/program director |
| June 30 | Deadline to complete annual evaluations Updated CVs and Faculty Review Tables uploaded into Box folders by Chair/director (or administrative assistant) |
Approval
6/13/2025: CHP alignment of annual performance review was evaluated and approved by Wendy Ward, Ph.D., Associate Provost for Faculty for adherence to requirements of UA BOT Policy 405.1.