Comprehensive Standard 3.7.2: Faculty Evaluation
The institution regularly evaluates the effectiveness of each faculty member in accord with published criteria, regardless of contractual or tenured status.
The University of South Florida Sarasota-Manatee (USF Sarasota-Manatee) regularly evaluates the effectiveness of each faculty member in accordance with Florida law, Florida Board of Governors’ regulations, University of South Florida System policy, and USF Sarasota-Manatee guidelines. The
criteria for evaluating faculty who teach web-enhanced (<50% online), hybrid (51-79%), or fully
online courses (>80%) is the same as those teaching 100% face-to-face.
Florida Statute 1001.706 (6a), related to personnel, states the following: “The Board of Governors, or the board’s designee, shall establish the personnel program for all employees of a state university.”
Florida Board of Governors BOG Regulation 1.001 details the powers and duties of university boards of trustees, giving university boards the powers and duties necessary and appropriate for the direction, operation, management, and accountability of the university. Under this BOG regulation, university boards of trustees “ . . . provide for the establishment of the personnel program for all the employees of the university, including the president, which may include but is not limited to . . . standards for performance and conduct, evaluation. . . .”
USF System Regulation 10.108, Faculty Evaluations stipulates the following:
1. Evaluations will be provided to faculty members on a regular basis.
a. Faculty evaluations will be based only on assigned duties.
b. The faculty evaluation process will consider all relevant documents and information
provided by the faculty member.
c. Faculty evaluations will include evaluation by faculty peers, if so required by departmental or unit guidelines, and will include the right of faculty members to respond to evaluations in writing.
2. The evaluation document will communicate to the faculty member the level of his/her
performance, aid in improving performance in the assigned duties, and if necessary, serve
as a part of a performance plan to assist in correcting deficiencies for a faculty member not
meeting performance standards. The evaluation must be considered in making personnel
The only exceptions to the evaluation requirement are for certain visiting faculty, faculty in non-reappointment status, and faculty on a one-term contract. USF/UFF CBA Article 10, Section A, of the USF/United Faculty of Florida Collective Bargaining Agreement also governs faculty annual evaluations.The USF Sarasota-Manatee Handbook contains the Faculty Annual Review Timeline with information for faculty members regarding the steps in the evaluation process. Deans evaluate all faculty members (including tenured faculty, tenure-earning faculty, instructors, and faculty on Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP), on Phased Retirement, on leave of absence, on compensated leaves, and on administrative appointments) annually on the individual’s assigned duties and according to the percentage of assignment to teaching, research, service, and other assigned duties and responsibilities.
Faculty Annual Performance Evaluation Process
The college deans, assisted by a faculty committee in the cases of the College of Education and College of Arts & Sciences, conduct annual faculty evaluations. This process is guided by forms/reports in the USF System Faculty Academic Information Reporting (FAIR) system. The FAIR system includes the following:
- Assigned Faculty Duties (AFD)/Faculty Activity Report (FAR) Form: At the beginning of each academic year, the dean uses the AFD-FAR Workload Screen in the FAIR system to assign workload duties for each faculty member. The assigned faculty duties typically include teaching, research, and service. At the conclusion of each semester, the dean reconciles the duties assigned (AFD) with the actual duties performed by the faculty member and inputs them into the FAIR database system to produce the Faculty Activities Report (FAR). The AFD/FAR screens are reviewed each semester by the deans and the Regional Vice Chancellor for Academic & Student Affairs.
- Workload Report: The result of the reconciliation between the AFD and FAR information becomes a Workload Report in the FAIR system.
- Effort Report: At the conclusion of the calendar year, all full-time faculty must also complete an Annual Effort Report on the prior year’s activities.
- Annual Report: The information from the workload and effort reports is summarized in an Faculty Annual Report in the FAIR system. As part of this report, the dean (and faculty committee in COE) provides a written statement on the faculty member’s performance. The faculty member can also provide a written response.
- Student Assessment of Instruction: As part of each faculty’s annual report, student assessment of instruction is included by means of a USF System Student Assessment of Instruction survey conducted for each class section each academic term. Students complete the assessments online through the eXplorance Blue system with the results, including written student comments, provided through FAIR. Examples of student comments can be seen in the example evaluations provided below. Tabulated results for each course and professor are public record, accessible through the public website. Student comments are not part of the public record and are made available to the faculty through the FAIR System. Results of course and instructor evaluations are used as part of individual faculty evaluations and in consideration for tenure and promotion.
In accordance with USF System Policy 10.108 noted above, deans also review the classroom performance of part-time faculty, or adjuncts, in every course through the Student Assessment of Instruction surveys. Each semester, the deans review student course evaluations and comments to identify patterns of concern. If a pattern of concern is identified, it is discussed with the faculty member. In most cases, the faculty member has already identified the issue and has plans to address it. If not, a verbal plan and any necessary supports are identified. For example, support may be provided through professional development or mentoring by a full-time faculty member. If the pattern continues, that is, was not addressed, the faculty member is not recommended to teach future courses (Adjunct Evaluation Example). The written evaluation results serve various purposes including seeking improvement in performance, understanding and dealing with the perceptions of faculty, dealing with programmatic considerations, determining salary increases, and making personnel decisions including reassignments and/or a change in responsibilities.
Progress Toward Tenure and Promotion
USF Sarasota-Manatee’s faculty members developed USF Sarasota-Manatee Tenure and Promotion Guidelines. Each college at USF Sarasota-Manatee developed guidelines for the faculty: Arts & Sciences Tenure & Promotion Guidelines, Business Tenure & Promotion Guidelines, Education Tenure & Promotion Guidelines, and Hospitality and Tourism Leadership Tenure & Promotion Guidelines. These guidelines outline specifics for faculty in tenure-earning and tenured lines to move from assistant professor to associate professor to professor at USF Sarasota-Manatee and include Librarian Tenure & Promotion Guidelines. In addition to annual reviews, deans evaluate faculty who are tenure-eligible at the mid-tenure point and then again when they are eligible to be tenured.
In 2014-15, using Tenure & Promotion guidelines, four (4) faculty members were promoted to associate professor and granted tenure, and one (1) was reviewed at the mid-tenure point. In addition, three (3) new faculty members were approved for tenure as a condition of employment (USF ACE Workgroup Meeting of May 11, 2015: ACE Workgroup Minutes May 11, 2015, Tenure Packet, Tenure Condition of Employment Packet; USF BOT BOT Minutes June 4, 2015, June 4, 2015).
Evaluation of Tenured Faculty
In addition to annual reviews, the Collective Bargaining Agreement provides for a Sustained Performance Review once every seven (7) years following the award of tenure or the faculty member’s most recent promotion. The purpose of the review is to document sustained performance during the previous six years and to encourage continued professional growth and development. As USF Sarasota-Manatee has been separately accredited fewer than seven (7) years, no faculty have gone through the Sustained Performance Review yet.
Progress toward Instructor Promotion
In addition to annual reviews for instructors, they also have a career path from Instructor I to Instructor II to Instructor III. USF Sarasota-Manatee’s faculty members developed USF Sarasota-Manatee Instructor Promotion Guidelines. Each college at USF Sarasota-Manatee developed guidelines for the faculty: Arts & Sciences Instructor Promotion Guidelines, Business Instructor Promotion Guidelines, Education Instructor Promotion Guidelines, and Hospitality & Technology Leadership Instructor Promotion Guidelines. Since the Instructor Promotion process began in 2012, USF Sarasota-Manatee has promoted three (3) faculty from Instructor I to Instructor II. None have had enough time yet in the Instructor II position to apply for Instructor III.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION AND EVIDENCE