3.12.A - Annual Reviews - Kennesaw State University (2024)

A. Annual Reviews

The annual assessment of a faculty member’s contributions to the University will be based on performance in reference to the criteria listed in the most recent year’s Faculty Performance Agreement(s) (FPA). The basis of this assessment is an Annual Review Document (ARD) that is compiled by the faculty member to demonstrate progress toward the criteria in the FPA. This document will convey accurate information and the criteria by which the faculty member is to be assessed, counseled, and judged. The professional performance at KSU must address the quantity, quality, and significance of the contributions.

1. Format (ARD and FPA)

The FPA must be updated annually in conjunction with the annual review. Both the annual review and the FPA are integral to the next annual review process. The ARD and the FPA together provide a retrospective and prospective synopsis of a faculty member’s performance. They provide the basis for all levels of reviewers to properly assess the contributions of the faculty member.

The ARD addresses items in the past year’s FPA. The exact format and layout of the ARD and the FPA will be determined by the faculty member’s department. The College P&T Committee, the department chair, the dean, and the Provost must approve these formats. Because the ARD and the FPA are integral to Promotion and Tenure decisions, those documents must reflect the Promotion and Tenure guidelines.

2. Evaluation of Categories by Chairs

Chairs will evaluate faculty members in each of the three performance categories–teaching, scholarship and creative activity, and service-based upon the following five-point rubric:

5. Exemplary

4. Exceeds Expectations

3. Meets Expectations

2. Needs Improvement

1. Does Not Meet Expectations

(BoR Academic and Student Affairs Handbook 4.4)

In addition, chairs will evaluate faculty efforts to promote student success in at least one of the three areas. Although these rubrics will be developed in greater detail at the college and departmental level, they should be developed in alignment with the template below.

According to USG policy, “Institutions must ensure that workload percentages for faculty roles and responsibilities must be factored into the performance evaluation model in a consistent manner. The overall evaluation must indicate whether the faculty member is making satisfactory progress toward the next level of review appropriate to their rank, tenure status, and career stage as noted in the 5-point scale.” (BoR Academic and Student Affairs Handbook 4.4)

The overall evaluation will weigh the rating in each area by the workload percentage in that area. The overall evaluation will then be rounded to the nearest whole number; however, the overall evaluation can be a maximum of 4 (cannot be 5) if there is a 1 in any area.

3. Academic Administrative Review

Per BoR Policy Manual, Section 8.3.5.3, academic administrative officers shall be evaluated by the administrator’s supervisor, using criteria that address the distinctive nature of administrators’ work and leadership roles and will include constituent feedback. Administrative faculty will be evaluated annually by the administrator’s supervisor and additionally will be evaluated by their subordinates (one level down) at least once every five years. Evaluation results will be the basis for the administrative faculty’s development plan.

4. Process for Annual Review

Each full-time faculty member at KSU, regardless of rank or responsibilities or contract type, must receive an annual review of his or her performance (BoR Policy Manual, Section 8.3.5). In January of each year, the department chair or direct supervisor of the faculty member conducts an annual review of the faculty member’s activity (provided in the ARD) in relation to the FPA goals for the previous calendar year. Administrators reviewing candidates should be very clear in stating their expectations and in discussing problems in detail with the faculty member.

The annual review process begins when the faculty member submits documentation and materials for the annual evaluation (including ARD and FPA). The appropriate supervisor will discuss with the faculty member in a scheduled conference the content of that faculty member’s annual written evaluation and his/her progression towards achieving future milestones. The faculty member will be given 10 calendar days to respond in writing to the annual written evaluation. Within 14 calendar days, the appropriate supervisor will acknowledge in the digital workflow the receipt of the response, noting changes, if any, in the annual written evaluation made as a result of either the conference or the faculty member’s written response. (BoR Academic and Student Affairs Handbook 4.4)

The entire package is then forwarded to the next administrative level for review. Within 10 calendar days from the review decision, the faculty member has the right to submit electronically a written appeal to the next level of review addressing specific items from the review providing clarification or additional perspective. Such responses become integral to the ARD throughout the review process. The response is archived with all other documentation for future reference (e.g., inclusion in portfolio reviews). No response is required by the last administrative reviewer.

If the faculty member believes that the process of review has been violated, the faculty member may request review under the provisions of the KSU Grievance Policy.

Evaluation of faculty performance via the Annual Review Document and Faculty Performance Agreement will be conducted in the digital workflow system. The general timeline for annual reviews and evaluation of faculty performance adheres to the following schedule:

• Last Friday of January: Completed ARDs/FPAs submitted by teaching and administrative faculty to next level supervisors.
• 2nd Friday of March: All reviews between teaching and administrative faculty and next level supervisors completed; portfolios submitted to second level supervisors.
• 2nd Friday of April: Second level supervisors return annual review submissions to teaching and administrative faculty;salary recommendations (if applicable; exact date TBD based on Budget Office and Board of Regents directions).

Each college may elect to have the faculty due date sooner, however, no earlier than one week before KSU’s deadline, but not later, than those listed above. All faculty must have an annual review digitally signed by the appropriate administrators at all levels by the final due date listed above. Failure by a faculty member to submit all documentation required for annual reviews according to the University review timeline above shall be deemed as not meeting performance standards.Eligibility for merit, if applicable, is contingent upon completion of the ARD process.

A faculty member returning from a full leave of absence must complete their ARD and FPA within two weeks of returning from leave during their academic or fiscal contract period. If a faculty member on an academic contract officially returns from leave when they are not under contract (e.g., during the summer), the ARD and FPA must be completed within two weeks of the next contract start date.

Within 30 days after the start date, new faculty should develop an FPA in consultation with the Department Chair, to cover the period from the start date to December of the start year.

The requirement for annual reviews does not preclude the possibility of having additional reviews during the year. Non-renewal schedules as outlined in Section 4.1.8 of the KSU Faculty Handbook must be followed.

ARDs, FPAs, supervisor evaluation, and any additional comments, such as response letters, must be submitted with documents and materials for all Promotion and Tenure reviews, including pre-tenure reviews and post-tenure reviews.

5. Performance Remediation Plan

If a tenured faculty member receives a “1 - Does Not Meet Expectations” or “2 - Needs Improvement” in any of the categories during an annual review, the chair of the department and the faculty member will develop a Performance Remediation Plan (PRP) in consultation with the faculty member to remediate the faculty member’s performance. A Performance Remediation Plan sets forth realistic goals and strategies for the faculty member to begin meeting expectations in the following year’s annual review. (BoR Faculty and Student Affairs Handbook 4.4) The PRP should include the following:

1. A set of realistic goals that are achievable within the timeframe of the Performance Remediation Plan.
2. A set of realistic strategies for achieving those goals.
3. A realistic measurement.
4. A realistic timeline.
5. Available resources for enacting strategies and achieving goals.
6. Set meetings between the chair and the faculty member - at least two (including the PRP planning meeting) during the Spring Semester and two the following Fall semester. (BoR Faculty and Student Affairs Handbook 4.4)

In addition to setting forth realistic goals that are specific and achievable during the evaluation period, the PRP should fit within the faculty member’s situational context and workload. Moreover, it should address the issues that caused the 1 or 2 rating(s). The PRP must be approved by the Dean and submitted to Academic Affairs by the end of the current academic year contract. Important note: Faculty cannot be required to fulfill their PRP while they are off contract. Examples of such goals and strategies may include but are not limited to:

• Attend development activities (seminars, workshops, conferences, etc.)
• Seek mentorship, either inside or outside the department (may be facilitated by chair; mentor may have duties re-assigned to facilitate this)
• Produce updated curriculum or other work products
• Develop and/or disseminate scholarship
• Produce reflective evaluation of any area that resulted in the 1 or 2 rating.
• Undertake leadership or other active roles in service activities

During the annual review process in the following year, the faculty member will address the goals and strategies in the PRP from the previous year. If the faculty member’s performance in every category is determined by the chair/director to be 3 or above, the PRP is successfully completed. If the PRP was not successfully completed - the performance in any category (whether the same or different area from the prior year) is evaluated by the chair/director to be a 1 or 2 - the faculty member, if tenured, will participate in a corrective post tenure review the following fall. (BoR Faculty and Student Affairs Handbook 4.4, 4.7)

Note that while this section of the Handbook pertains to tenured faculty members, tenure-track faculty members will also be evaluated annually on the elements of teaching, student success activities, research/scholarship, and service, following the procedures described above. In the case of deficiency identified through an annual evaluation, they will be put on a Performance Remediation Plan (PRP). If there is deficiency over two consecutive annual evaluations, institutions will determine specific consequences ranging from being put on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) to correct deficiencies, to possible separation of employment. For non-tenured faculty members, the PRP and subsequent steps are suggested for developmental purposes, but completing all these steps is not necessary for non-renewal. For guidance on non-renewal, please see BOR Policy 8.3.4 Notice of Employment and Resignation.)

(See BoR Academic and Student Affairs Handbook 4.7)

6. Corrective Post-Tenure Review

If a tenured faculty member receives a “1 - Does Not Meet Expectations” or “2 - Needs Improvement” on two consecutive annual reviews, the faculty member will undergo a corrective post-tenure review. (Importantly, the faculty member does not have to receive a “1 - Does Not Meet Expectations” or “2 - Needs Improvement” in the same area as the previous year for a faculty member to be required to undergo a corrective post-tenure review.) Faculty undergoing a corrective post-tenure review will follow the same processes as faculty undergoing a regular post-tenure review. If the outcome of the Corrective Post-Tenure Review is successful, the faculty member will reset the post-tenure review clock. If the outcome of a corrective post tenure review does not meet expectations or needs improvement, the same process for an unsuccessful PTR will be followed.(BoR Faculty and Student Affairs Handbook 4.7)