Chapter 2 Faculty Evaluation Policy

General Information

This Faculty Evaluation Model has the following sections: principles and criteria upon which faculty evaluations are based: principles informing the roles of different parties in the faculty evaluation; evaluation procedures for each type of evaluation, evaluation forms, and Calendars of Events for each type of evaluation.

This Model covers evaluations of full-time faculty members and evaluations by faculty members of Department Chairs, but does not cover administrators or academic support personnel even though they may hold faculty rank. Full-time teaching faculty are those who teach at least nine semester hours. Some faculty who would normally be considered full-time but who have been reassigned to other non-teaching duties are to adjust the weights in their self-evaluations to account for those other responsibilities. Performance in such non-teaching functions will be evaluated by whomever the faculty member reports to for those responsibilities.

Full-time faculty receive annual evaluations, evaluations for promotion and/or tenure, and contract renewal and advisory evaluations. Tenured faculty receive a comprehensive, periodic, cumulative evaluation every five years or five years from the last review related to tenure and/or promotion. Procedures for non-tenure-track faculty are also described. Faculty members are evaluated in three areas (teaching, scholarship, and service) to which flexible area weights are assigned. Overall evaluation is recorded on standard evaluation forms and measured in accordance with a four-category Standard Performance Rating Scale. Overall performance ratings become the basis for annual recommendations for merit salary increases as well as for tenure, promotion, or contract renewal recommendations. In this Model, the phrase “major evaluations” denotes evaluations for tenure, promotion, or contract renewal. Librarians with faculty rank are evaluated under the provisions of the Faculty Handbook in the section below on “Policy Statement on Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure of Professional Librarians.” Evaluation of library services, including performance of library personnel, is delegated to the Academic Support Services Sub-Committee of the Faculty Senate. Evaluations (contract renewal, annual, tenure, promotion, and post-tenure review) of professional librarians with faculty rank will follow the same general procedures that are applied to teaching faculty, with exceptions dependent on the special responsibilities of librarians. Those responsibilities are outlined in general terms as criteria for appointment, promotion, and tenure in Section II, Chapter 1 on Faculty Personnel Policies and Section II, Chapter 3 on Faculty Tenure and Promotion Policy.

Faculty members seeking tenure and/or promotion are advised to consult Section II, Chapter 3 of the Faculty Handbook that outlines University-wide criteria for tenure and promotion.

Optional Departmental Evaluation Plan

The general objectives of the Faculty Evaluation Model may be attained by other methods. Departments that prefer to modify criteria or procedures are strongly encouraged to develop a Departmental Evaluation Plan. That plan may provide specific criteria as supplements to the Guiding Principles and may substitute alternatives for the Format for Evaluation Reports, the Student Evaluation of Instruction Form, and the Department Chair Evaluation Form. In developing any alternative Student Evaluation of Instruction Form, a department should obtain input from its students.

An acceptable plan must (a) adhere to the guiding principles and procedural objectives in this document; (b) conform to all deadlines established herein; (c) produce a final output that can be expressed in terms of the Annual Merit Salary Increase Recommendation Form and the Tenure, Promotion, and Renewal Form; (d) be approved by a two-thirds majority of the department’s full-time faculty; and (e) be approved by the Faculty Senate. Departmental plans are required to be reasonably consistent across time so that no individual’s evaluation is affected by temporary, arbitrary, or radical changes. The Office for Academic Affairs will maintain a file of all approved departmental plans for examination by all faculty members.

Guiding Principles

The underlying philosophy of this Model is that evaluation of faculty performance is a complex process that should promote a reasonable degree of equity and consistency for all individuals and academic departments. The Model should be implemented in a way that enhances faculty development and promotes faculty achievement and satisfaction while also promoting the mission of The University of North Carolina at Pembroke.

All phases of evaluation are to be guided by the principles set forth below. Individual faculty members have latitude in the roles they assume as they fulfill their responsibilities to the University and its mission. The Model encourages flexibility in applying the principles and criteria for each area of faculty evaluation, allowing for the varying needs and traditions of different academic disciplines. The Model also specifies procedures that promote consistency in evaluation. This Evaluation Model will be reviewed periodically by the Faculty Evaluation Review Subcommittee and amended as the Faculty Senate deems appropriate.

As a means to help insure fairness in all formal evaluations, a faculty member has the right to submit a rebuttal pertaining to any aspects of reports submitted by Deans, Department Chairs or Peer Evaluation Committees. Each entity in the evaluation process, therefore, is to submit a copy of its report to the faculty member being evaluated.

While this Model attempts to be reasonably comprehensive with respect to policies and procedures, faculty members should also be familiar with other sections of the Faculty Handbook concerning tenure and promotion criteria (Section II, Chapter 3), grievance procedures (Section II, Chapter 1), and hearing procedures (due process: Section II, Chapter I). Further, employment at the University and conduct as a faculty member are governed by sections of The Code of the Board of Governors of The University of North Carolina (available at the website for the UNC General Administration at http://www.northcarolina.edu/policy/index.php). Faculty members should consult this document as well as the Faculty Handbook.

For purposes of evaluation, all faculty responsibilities are divided among three general areas of teaching, research, and service as reflected in The University of North Carolina at Pembroke Mission Statement. Some activities, such as grant-related work, may fall into several areas and should be evaluated accordingly. Throughout the following sections, the term “knowledge” is used as a broad summary term intended to include factual information; epistemological and empirical principles; artistic technique; empirical and interpretive methodologies; reasoning skills; and so forth.

Evaluation of Teaching

At The University of North Carolina at Pembroke, teaching is the single most important responsibility of regular full-time faculty members. According to our Mission Statement, The University of North Carolina at Pembroke “exists to promote excellence in teaching and learning, at the graduate and undergraduate levels, in an environment of free inquiry, interdisciplinary collaboration, and rigorous intellectual standards.” Teaching thus receives an area weight of 50%-70% in a faculty member’s evaluation, unless an exception is granted in writing.

The teaching area has two components. Classroom teaching includes all activities involved in preparing and conducting the courses that a faculty member is assigned to teach. Auxiliary teaching activities may include submitting grades, supervising student research projects or other learning not directly tied to a class, administration of teaching-related grants, cooperating with colleagues in planning curricula, cooperating with university-wide and departmental curricular objectives, and pursuing professional growth as a teacher.

Classroom teaching effectiveness is evaluated in terms of six broad dimensions:

1. Imparting general knowledge: Effective teachers impart a sound and up-to-date understanding of the concepts, categories, principles, summaries, and other generalizations that apply to the topics within a course, providing a foundation for other learning. Even courses in applied techniques present conceptual frameworks that may be communicated through demonstrations, exercises, and discussions as well as lectures. Typically, success in imparting general content is evidenced by students’ capacity to explain what they have learned; to understand new information in the area; to apply their knowledge to new problems and contexts; and to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate information.
2. Imparting specific knowledge: Effective teachers impart a representative, unbiased, selection of facts, examples, and other details that enrich a course’s general content. In a successful course, specific content authenticates and illustrates concepts, stimulates the imagination, and presents logical relationships between specific and general content clearly.
3. Developing skills: Effective teachers develop students’ capacity to perform various types of skills. Some of these skills reinforce course content. Other skills involve broader intellectual operations that underlie most university courses, such as creativity, oral and written communication skills, critical thinking, research methods, computer proficiency, and basic quantitative reasoning. Since many students need to develop basic skills, success in this area is an important component of effective teaching.
4. Motivating students: Effective teachers elicit from students a strong desire to learn. Motivated students prepare for class sessions, pay attention during class, participate in discussions, complete assigned work, rehearse skills, and study for examinations. Motivated students also show confidence, curiosity, and creativity; they strive for excellence in completing assignments; and they take an interest in non-required material and further course work in the area covered. Effective teaching practices to stimulate motivation are also addressed below.
5. Setting requirements and evaluating performance: Effective teachers fairly and accurately evaluate student learning while also providing students with specific feedback that promotes further learning. Performance standards are appropriate to course content and course level. Examinations, papers, and other assignments are sufficient, varied, and challenging; are appropriate to course content, course objectives, and students’ background; and allow students to demonstrate their learning. Student work is graded carefully and returned in a timely manner with appropriate feedback. Student failure is handled constructively.
6. Success with effective teaching practices: Effective teachers provide syllabi with clear course objectives and requirements; use teaching techniques (e.g., lectures, demonstrations, exercises, and discussions) that are effective and appropriate to fulfill course objectives; meet their classes as scheduled; set high expectations and help students meet them; involve students in active and cooperative learning; and continually review and revise courses. Effective teachers are enthusiastic and intellectually involved, treat students with respect and courtesy, offer extra assistance to students, and encourage students to consult with them outside of class.

Auxiliary teaching activities are evaluated by criteria appropriate to these activities, such as submitting valid grades in a timely manner, effectively supervising student research projects or other learning not directly tied to a class, working constructively with peers to develop curricula, supporting University and departmental objectives, and participating in activities for professional development as a teacher. Major evaluations for renewal, tenure, promotion, and post-tenure review will include documentation of teaching effectiveness. This documentation typically includes copies of representative syllabi, tests, assignments, and handouts; samples of student work and the faculty member’s response to the work; and Student Evaluation Reports. This extensive documentation is typically not required for annual evaluations.

Major evaluations for renewal, tenure, and promotion require reports on classroom observations by the Department Chair and members of a Peer Evaluation Committee. Auxiliary teaching activities may be documented by copies of student research projects, outlines of new curricula to which a contribution was made, and records of participation in activities for professional development as a teacher (workshops, seminars, conferences, etc).

Evaluation of Scholarship

Though teaching is their fundamental responsibility, all full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty members are expected to have a balanced pattern of scholarship and service over the previous three years of employment at The University of North Carolina at Pembroke. Scholarship receives an area weight of 10% to 40% in a faculty member’s evaluation unless an exception is granted in writing. Scholarly work in progress, if appropriately documented, is recognized as a component of scholarship, but completed works of scholarship receive greater weight in evaluation. In promotion and tenure decisions, a consistent pattern of completed scholarly projects is expected.

Scholarship (scholarly research and/or scholarly publication) is defined as a set of disciplined intellectual activities that create or refine knowledge and exert influence through public dissemination in an academically respectable format. This definition of scholarship includes creative activity appropriate to the arts. Scholarly research is defined as (a) creating basic knowledge, (b) compiling or synthesizing knowledge, (c) applying existing basic knowledge to the solution of practical problems, (d) applying professional knowledge and skills to artistic problems, or (e) completing a special program of intellectual development. Scholarly research may include research involved in the dissemination of scholarship or the preparation of scholarly publications as an editor or reviewer.

Attendance at professional conferences and workshops can contribute to a faculty member’s scholarly research and may count among scholarly activities in a given year. Over time, however, conference attendance without scholarly publication (see below) in itself is not considered scholarship. Preparation and administration of grants qualifies as scholarly research only insofar as it entails the activities cited above.

Scholarly publication is defined as employing accepted techniques to publicly communicate research to (a) scholarly audiences, (b) student audiences, or (c) general audiences. Although most scholarly publication is intended primarily for other scholars, a publication that informs a broader audience is acceptable as long as the format of the publication is appropriate to a discipline.

Scholarship is evaluated primarily against specialized criteria appropriate to the disciplines of each department and consistent with a department’s evaluation plan. The quality of scholarly publication is typically ensured through a peer review process appropriate to its audience. General criteria for evaluating scholarship include (a) significance as indicated by judged intellectual depth and scope, originality, and potential benefit to academia or society at large; and (b) peer review or recognition as indicated by publication in a refereed journal, publication in book form by a scholarly press or other recognized publisher, or presentation at a recognized forum for work in progress. National and international forums are typically accorded greater significance than regional ones. In tenure and promotion decisions, completed projects carry more weight than works in progress.

Evaluation of Service

Though teaching is a fundamental responsibility, all full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty members are expected to have a balanced pattern of scholarship and service at The University of North Carolina at Pembroke. Service receives an area weight of 10% to 40% in a faculty member’s evaluation unless an exception is granted in writing.

Service is divided into three categories: University service, professional service, and community service. In a given year, faculty members may apportion their service activities among these categories as they deem appropriate or in accordance with the needs of the University (e.g. required service to area public schools). Although a faculty member may choose to emphasize one or more areas of service, candidates for tenure and/or promotion should show some level of service in each of the three categories.

University service includes any University-related activities other than teaching and scholarship that promote the welfare of the University. Activities within and outside one’s academic department (academic advisement of students, mentoring, preparation of grant applications, administrative activities associated with external grants and student activities, committee work and involvement in faculty governance, revision of curricula, preparation of accreditation reports, and similar voluntary activities not assigned as position responsibilities) are considered University service.

Collegiality (willingness and ability to cooperate with colleagues) may be considered relevant to evaluation of service. If so, assessment of collegiality should be based solely on the faculty member’s capacity to relate constructively to peers, including his or her impact on others’ work.

Professional service consists of activities that benefit a faculty member’s field of professional expertise. Professional service may include serving on professional committees and governing boards, serving as an officer in a professional organization, organizing and chairing sessions at professional meetings, and performing routine editing and reviewing. A professional activity for which remuneration is granted is evaluated as service only in cases where any compensation is very limited (e.g., expenses or a small honorarium).

Community service connotes activities that (a) are charitable; (b) are performed for the benefit of individuals or groups separate from the University and from the wider profession whether in a secular or non-secular context; and c) involve a commitment in time and use of professional expertise. Examples of community service include participating on committees and governing boards; speaking to nonprofessional audiences about topics in one’s discipline; providing consultation to schools, civic organizations, and government agencies; or providing leadership on public matters related to the faculty member’s professional expertise. A community service activity for which remuneration is granted is evaluated as service only in cases where any compensation is very limited (e.g., expenses or a small honorarium).

University service is evaluated when possible by results: advisees grant applications completed, grants successfully administered, activities of student organizations, valuable contributions to a committee’s projects, completion of reports, gaining accreditation, and similar accomplishments. Listing committee membership as a form of service implies that one has fulfilled at least the basic responsibilities of membership. Professional service and community service are evaluated when possible by results: by the importance of contributions made, by how demanding activities were, and by how well objectives were achieved.

Appropriate materials that demonstrate service contributions commensurate with the area weight assigned must be used to document service. In general, letters of appreciation from organizers of service opportunities should be used as documentation only if they indicate an exceptional contribution. University service may be documented by materials such as lists of advisees; copies of reports or grants prepared; and supporting statements by Department Chairs, committee chairs, or the Office for Sponsored Research and Programs. Professional service and community service may be documented by printed or widely distributed materials such as conference programs, flyers, or by statements from chairs or presidents.

Participants in Faculty Evaluation

All evaluators should be guided by the traditions of academic freedom. Also, all evaluators are required to maintain confidentiality about all the information and decisions involved except for disclosures required by their formal reporting responsibilities.

The Faculty Member Being Evaluated

The main kinds of evaluations of faculty members are as follows. Each full-time faculty member, even a faculty member not tenured or in a tenure-track position, receives annual evaluations. In addition, faculty members in tenure-track positions receive evaluations for tenure and for each promotion. Untenured tenure-track faculty receive contract renewal evaluations and may receive advisory evaluations. Nontenure-track faculty are evaluated annually.

Because of the complexity and specialized nature of academic work, a faculty member’s self-evaluation should be a primary source of information about the goals, methods, and degree of success associated with his or her performance. Faculty members are responsible for representing their work accurately and providing appropriate documentation for their claims. Faculty members should have considerable freedom to allocate their time and effort in ways that use their competencies most productively while still fulfilling their responsibilities to the University. To allow individual choices to play a meaningful role in self-evaluation, the faculty member indicates a set of annual area weights when completing a Self-Evaluation Report. These weights are taken into account by evaluators in developing overall performance evaluations. In all formal evaluations, the candidate has the right to submit a rebuttal pertaining to any aspects of reports submitted by the Dean, Department Chair, or the Peer Evaluation Committee.

Students

Students who take a faculty member’s courses play an important role in evaluating the faculty member’s teaching effectiveness. They submit information on a Student Evaluation of Instruction Form consisting of numerical data and student comments from which summaries are compiled for each course. Student evaluations must be administered in a manner that conveys their importance and protects students’ sense of freedom to give candid evaluations. Students should also have significant input in developing or selecting the instruments used to gather their evaluations of teaching.

Student evaluations by themselves do not provide sufficient information to validly judge a faculty member’s performance as a teacher; hence, evaluation of teaching effectiveness involves a variety of types of documentation. In addition, all parties involved in faculty evaluation are cautioned to avoid placing undue emphasis on individual student comments, as these comments may not be reflective of the opinions of the majority of students in a given course. The Student Evaluation of Instruction completion rate in each course should also be taken into account by all evaluators when weighting the numerical data summary. The data should be viewed with extreme caution when completion rates for the listed course were low.

The Department Chair

The Department Chair is responsible for (a) coordinating the evaluation process at the departmental level, (b) providing the primary administrative evaluation of the faculty member’s performance, and (c) promoting the professional growth of the department’s faculty. In years prior to tenure and/or promotion decisions, the Department Chair is strongly encouraged to provide each faculty member with constructive, timely guidance about the means by which any deficiencies can be corrected.

A Department Chair’s Evaluation Report includes assigning performance ratings, recommending merit salary increases in annual evaluations, and reporting on classroom observation for major evaluations. In preparing the Department Chair’s Evaluation Report for a faculty member, a Chair should use the Format for Evaluation Reports and be guided by the Standard Performance Rating Scale (available at the website for the Office of Academic Affairs at http://www.uncp.edu/aa/forms/). Serious consideration must be given to the area weights on the faculty member’s Self-Evaluation Report(s).

The Peer Evaluation Committee

A Peer Evaluation Committee’s first task is to elect a chair who then notifies the Department Chair of his or her election. The Peer Evaluation Committee is responsible for preparing and submitting a Peer Evaluation Report in decisions involving tenure and/or promotion, as well as contract renewal evaluations and in post-tenure review evaluations.

The report is based on documentation submitted by the faculty member being evaluated, classroom observations, and external review if called for. The Peer Evaluation Committee is responsible for gathering appropriate information, assessing its implications, and formulating a coherent evaluation of the faculty member’s performance. The Peer Evaluation Committee is given access to the faculty member’s entire portfolio including previous annual chair Evaluations. However, no discussion should take place between the Peer Evaluation Committee and the Department Chair (or between the Peer Evaluation Committee and the Dean in the case of a Department chair) during the course of the review.

In preparing the Peer Evaluation Report for a faculty member, a Peer Evaluation Committee should use the Format for Evaluation Reports and be guided by the Standard Performance Rating Scale. Serious consideration must be given to the area weights on the faculty member’s Self-Evaluation Report(s).

The Deans of Schools and Colleges

The Deans of Schools and Colleges are responsible for monitoring the evaluation process for compliance with the Faculty Evaluation Model as well as for overall fairness and equity. After reviewing the materials submitted by the Department Chair, Peer Evaluation Committee (if provided), and the faculty member under review, the Dean will complete the Dean’s Recommendation or Report form (available at the website for the Office of Academic Affairs at http://www.uncp.edu/aa/forms/), which will then be forwarded, with the materials the Dean has reviewed, to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs

The Promotion and Tenure Committee

The Promotion and Tenure Committee advises the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs on matters of promotion and tenure. This University-wide committee attempts to ensure a fair and consistent application of promotion and tenure standards. The responsibilities of the Promotion and Tenure Committee are to (a) gather the reports of the appropriate Dean, Department Chair, and Peer Evaluation Committee; (b) request any additional information that it deems necessary; (c) examine all facets of the application; and (d) reach an equitable final decision. Responsibilities in the tenure and/or promotion process are described in Section II, Chapter 3.

The Faculty Evaluation Review Subcommittee

The Faculty Evaluation Review Subcommittee is responsible for representing the norms and values of the general faculty in all matters related to the Faculty Evaluation Model. When the current provisions of the Faculty Evaluation Model do not provide adequate instruction on a specific procedural matter, the party involved may request an ad hoc ruling from the Faculty Evaluation Review Committee. This ruling will be forwarded for consideration to the Faculty Evaluation Review Subcommittee’s parent committee, the Faculty and Institutional Affairs Committee.

The Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs

The Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs is responsible for making recommendations about a faculty member’s salary increases, merit salary increases, tenure, promotion, and contract renewal to the Chancellor based on recommendations and materials submitted by the Department Chair and other evaluators. The Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs is also responsible for establishing and maintaining a general climate conducive to successful implementation of the Faculty Evaluation Model and for fostering conditions in which high levels of faculty achievement can occur. The Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs may modify deadlines in the evaluation process as circumstances warrant.

In reviewing Department Chairs’ and Dean’s salary recommendations, the Provost/Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs should balance the need for institutional accountability with the need to provide equitable opportunities for annual merit salary increases. In cases of tenure, promotion, and contract renewal, the recommendations of the Dean and Provost to the Chancellor should provide the faculty member with a fair, reasonable decision that serves the interests of the University.

The Provost/Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs is responsible for collaborating with Department Chairs and Deans to develop a uniform set of norms for interpreting the meaning of the Standard Performance Rating Scale. These norms will necessarily represent some discipline-related variations across departments, especially in the area of scholarship. Beyond such variations, no Department Chair should be permitted to use standards that deviate from the general norms and practices of the University.

The Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs should, through the Academic Deans, facilitate faculty development in teaching, scholarly activities, and service. The Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs should encourage Department Chairs to schedule teaching assignments judiciously and appropriately and to award reassigned time to faculty members as necessary. Working with the Faculty Research and Development Committee and the Center for Sponsored Research and Programs, the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs should promote a healthy program of both internal and external funding for scholarly and creative work.

The Chancellor

As Chief Executive Officer of the University, the Chancellor is responsible for facilitating the work of the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and others in implementing the Faculty Evaluation Model and promoting faculty achievement. The Chancellor receives, reviews, and acts upon all evaluative materials provided by the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. After reviewing the materials produced by the final evaluation process, the Chancellor takes actions regarding salary and employment.

Procedures for Annual Evaluation

Procedures for Evaluating Faculty: General Considerations

The evaluation procedures described in this section are designed to attain the following objectives: (a) provide every faculty member with adequate information on how evaluations will be conducted; (b) promote a reasonable degree of equity and consistency both within and among departments; (c) provide procedures that allow a reasonable degree of flexibility for faculty; and (d) define the relationship between the various components of an evaluation and the final decision of the evaluator. New faculty members should be informed of the evaluation procedures during their orientation to the University and should be encouraged to familiarize themselves with the Faculty Evaluation Model.

The annual evaluation provides the basis for merit salary increases and ongoing administrative supervision of faculty. It consists of a Self-Evaluation Report, Student Evaluation Report, Chair’s Evaluation Report, an Annual Merit Salary Increase Recommendation, the Dean’s Recommendation for Annual Salary Increase, and a recommendation by the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. Every full-time faculty member is evaluated annually. Faculty members on leave of absence are not evaluated, and Department Chairs evaluate part-time faculty using procedures developed by the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.

Every faculty member is evaluated every academic year. The annual evaluation includes a(n): (1) Self-Evaluation Report, (2) Student Evaluation Report, (3) Chair’s Evaluation Report, (4) Chair’s Annual Merit Salary Increase Recommendation, (5) the Dean’s Recommendation for Annual Salary Increase, and (6) recommendation of the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. Procedures for compiling these reports are listed below. The Calendar of Events for Annual Evaluations appears below.

In the Self-Evaluation Report, the faculty member must discuss his or her teaching, scholarship, and service. In addition, each component is assigned an area weight reflective of the time, effort, and accomplishments in each area. The following sections present guidelines to assist the faculty member in compiling the Self-Evaluation report. These guidelines are intended as a general overview of the specific information that should appear in a faculty member’s Self-Evaluation Report both in terms of area weights and subheadings.

A faculty member must specify an area weight for each of the three areas of evaluation. For faculty with a regular 12-hour teaching load, these percentages must conform to the following ranges: teaching, 50% - 70%; scholarship, 10% - 40%; and service, 10% - 40%. For any given academic year, the sum of these weights must equal 100%. Faculty members with unusual teaching loads are to adjust the ranges appropriately. A request for an exemption from these standards must be submitted in writing and approved by the chair of the faculty member’s department. Exceptions to these standards will be granted in reference to department needs. Grounds for an exemption may include, for example, additional teaching duties, administrative or grant activity, or retraining and retooling in the methodology appropriate to a faculty member’s discipline. Faculty members may discuss their area weights with the Department Chair at any time prior to completing their self-evaluation.

When circumstances create special demands on a department, a chair may require a faculty member to adapt his or her pattern of responsibilities to meet such demands. The Department Chair must inform the faculty member in writing of the circumstances and the adjustments required. The faculty member may then adjust his or her area weights on the Self-Evaluation Report as he or she deems appropriate. If the Department Chair is concerned that a prior pattern of area weights is not generating a record adequate for tenure in the department, the chair should recommend that a faculty member adjust his or her weights in future years. Adjustments in area weights may also be needed if a faculty member’s teaching load is reduced to allow for other types of activities, such as research or administrative responsibilities.

The faculty Self-Evaluation Report should be structured so that subheadings indicate the items reported and indicate appropriate area weights for each subheading. See the Format for Evaluation Reports (available at the website for the Office of Academic Affairs at http://www.uncp.edu/aa/forms/) for an example of how the report should be structured and the subheadings listed.

Student Evaluations of Instruction

All teaching faculty (full- and part-time faculty, Department Chairs, and administrators who teach) are evaluated by students using the Student Evaluation of Instruction Form. Although student evaluations by themselves do not provide sufficient information to validly judge a faculty member’s performance as a teacher, they do contribute to the overall faculty evaluation process. The data are summarized in a Student Evaluation Report.

Full-time faculty are evaluated during one semester of each academic year and part-time faculty are evaluated each semester. The Senate of the Student Government Association and the Faculty Senate must approve the Student Evaluation of Instruction Form. A department may add up to five supplementary items or scales to this form without approval from the Senate. Alternatively, a department may develop a substitute Student Evaluation of Instruction Form in lieu of the general form. The Senate of the Student Government Association and the Faculty Senate must approve any alternate forms.

Instructors being evaluated by students must employ the following evaluation procedures. First, the class is to select a student who will distribute the forms, collect the completed forms, place them in an envelope, and return the sealed envelope to the department secretary. Second, the faculty member must be absent from class while the evaluations are completed. Third, the faculty member being evaluated must not tabulate the student evaluations. Fourth, the faculty member must not receive any report on his or her evaluations until grades for the current semester have been submitted; verbatim evaluation statements will be transcribed when possible. Faculty members are encouraged to conduct student evaluations at the beginning of a class session, to allow adequate time to complete them.

Student evaluation of graduate instruction follows the same procedures as in undergraduate instruction. Graduate courses are evaluated following procedures approved by the Graduate Council and the Faculty Senate. These procedures can be found in the Graduate Faculty Handbook.

All first-year faculty are to be evaluated by students in both fall and spring semesters. Other faculty members are to be evaluated once a year on the following schedule:

Academic years that begin in odd-numbered years (e.g., fall, 2011-spring, 2012)
Faculty whose last names begin A - M are evaluated in the fall semester
Faculty whose last names begin N - Z are evaluated in the spring semester

Academic years that begin in even-numbered years (e.g., fall, 2012-spring, 2013)
Faculty whose last names begin N - Z are evaluated in the fall semester
Faculty whose last names begin A - M are evaluated in the spring semester

A quantitative summary of the ratings in each course is prepared as soon as possible, and transcripts of student comments are prepared when possible. The faculty member being evaluated must not prepare the quantitative summary or the transcript of comments. The Department Chair must retain the raw Student Evaluation of Instruction Forms for as long as these may be required for future evaluation reviews.

After grades have been submitted, the faculty member receives copies of the quantitative summaries and copies of the transcribed student comments if available. The faculty member may examine the original comments in the Department Chair’s office. The Department Chair prepares the Student Evaluation Report, based on both undergraduate and graduate student evaluations. It summarizes the quantitative summaries and individual comments given by students in a narrative and is included in the annual Chair’s Evaluation Report

Annual Chair’s Evaluation Report

As specified previously, each Department Chair must compile an annual Chair’s Evaluation Report for each faculty member in the department. This report consists of the (a) faculty member’s Self-Evaluation Report, (b) Student Evaluation Report, (c) chair’s narrative evaluation, and (d) Chair’s Annual Merit Salary Increase Recommendation Form.

Each Chair must compile and submit to the appropriate Dean an annual Chair’s Evaluation Report for each faculty member he or she supervises. This report should discuss the faculty member’s teaching, scholarship, and service. This report should conform to the general guidelines of the Format for Evaluation Reports, with the addition of: (1) a narrative synthesis of the faculty member’s performance, (2) an overall rating of the faculty member using the Standard Performance Rating Scale, and (3) a signature section for the Department Chair and faculty member being evaluated. The information appearing in the annual chair’s narrative evaluation for a faculty member will be drawn from (a) the faculty member’s Self-Evaluation Report, (b) student evaluations, and (c) the Department Chair’s observations on teaching, scholarship, and service. Even when a major evaluation has been conducted earlier in the academic year, a separate annual evaluation is required for purposes of a merit salary increase recommendation, since most of the year’s work will have been completed after the earlier major evaluation.

The Department Chair is required to obtain the faculty member’s signature on the Chair’s Evaluation Report and the Annual Merit Salary Increase Form. In both instances, the signature merely acknowledges having reviewed the report and form but does not indicate agreement with their content.

The Department Chair completes the Annual Merit Salary Increase Recommendation Form (available at the website for the Office of Academic Affairs at http://www.uncp.edu/aa/forms/).The recommendation is based on information developed in the annual Chair’s Evaluation Report for each faculty member and must reflect the UNC Board of Governors’ regulations for the dispersal of salary increase monies and the constraints set for The University of North Carolina at Pembroke by the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and by the Chancellor. The recommendation is to correspond to the overall performance rating contained in the Chair’s Evaluation Report as indicated by the relationships below.

Annual Dean’s Evaluation Report

After reviewing the materials the Department Chairs submit, the Dean of the relevant college or school will complete the Dean’s Recommendation for Annual Salary Increase form for each faculty member. Within three days, each faculty member will sign the Dean’s Recommendation, acknowledging having seen it but not necessarily agreement with it. The faculty member will retain one copy of the signed Dean’s Recommendation. The Dean will then forward the recommendation and the materials submitted by the Department Chair to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.

In the event that the Dean’s recommendation does not agree with that of the Department Chair, the Dean will justify that decision with appropriate comments on the Dean’s Recommendation for Annual Salary Increase form. The faculty member will have the right to rebut comments made on the Dean’s Recommendation form; such rebuttal will be submitted to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs within 10 days of the faculty member’s signing of the Dean’s recommendation.

Annual Provost’s Evaluation Report

The Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs reviews all the evaluative materials submitted by the Deans and recommends to the Chancellor whether or not to increase each faculty member’s salary and how much to increase the salary if an increase is recommended.

Chancellor’s Evaluation

After reviewing all the materials accumulated by the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and considering the recommendation of the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, the Chancellor makes the final decision on all faculty salary increases.

Procedures for Tenure and/or Promotion Evaluation

Evaluations for decisions concerning tenure and/or promotion of tenure-track faculty include the following materials and reports:

• Candidate’s materials compiled in accordance with the Portfolio Requirements listed below.
• Chair’s Evaluation Report for Tenure/Promotion (with Tenure, Promotion, and Renewal Form)
• Peer Evaluation Report for Tenure/Promotion (with Tenure, Promotion, and Renewal Form)
• Dean’s Report for Tenure/Promotion
• Promotion and Tenure Committee Evaluation Report (with Tenure, Promotion, and Renewal Form)
• Recommendation by the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.

All tenure track faculty are evaluated for tenure and/or promotion no later than their sixth year of employment at the University. All faculty applying for tenure and/or promotion also receive a major evaluation. The Calendar of Events is shown below. Faculty members seeking tenure and/or promotion also should consult Section II, Chapter 3 of the Faculty Handbook that outlines University-wide criteria for tenure and/or promotion

A faculty member being considered for promotion who is a member of the Promotion and Tenure Committee must resign that membership by September 21 if he or she is to be considered for a promotion in that academic year.

Notification and Scheduling of Tenure and Promotion Evaluations

The Department Chair is responsible for ascertaining when mandatory tenure and/or promotion evaluations are due. The Department Chair is responsible for announcing these occasions by August 15 in letters to the candidate, the Dean of the faculty member’s school or college, the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, and the Promotion and Tenure Committee. The letter to the candidate must indicate that the Self-Evaluation Report, Student Evaluation Reports, Peer Evaluation Committee Nomination Form, and supporting materials are due by August 29.

Although there are established eligibility dates for faculty members applying for tenure and promotion, a faculty member may request consideration for tenure and/or promotion earlier than these dates. To exercise this option, a faculty member must petition in writing to the Department Chair, the Dean of the relevant school or college, and the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs by August 1 of the current academic year. Otherwise, evaluation for promotion and tenure will occur in accordance with established dates.

Responsibilities of the Faculty Member Being Evaluated

A faculty member being evaluated for promotion or tenure must submit a portfolio and a completed Peer Evaluation Committee Nomination Form (available at the website for the Office of Academic Affairs at http://www.uncp.edu/aa/forms/) to the Department Chair by August 29. It is strongly advised that all members of the Peer Evaluation Committee be tenured or in phased retirement in the evaluated faculty member’s home department. However, when circumstances dictate, other choices may be made. An evaluated faculty member may not nominate faculty members who are being considered for contract renewal or tenure and/or promotion during the same academic year, the Department Chair, or a member of the Promotion and Tenure Committee.

The following material must be submitted by the faculty member in a three-ring binder divided into eight sections labeled with headings.

1. A copy of the completed Peer Evaluation Committee Nomination Form
2. A current Curriculum Vitae
3. An Expanded Self Evaluation Report covering the full period under consideration.
4. Copies of signed Department Chair’s Annual Evaluations received since the last successful major evaluation.
5. Student Evaluation Reports for the full period under consideration (Include the quantitative summary of ratings and transcripts of student comments.)
6. Documentation of effectiveness in teaching: Include course syllabi for a selection of courses taught at UNCP and course materials (selected assignments, handouts, PowerPoint slides, tests, student work, etc.) for one General Education course (if applicable), one upper division course (if applicable), and one graduate course (if applicable).
7. Documentation of scholarship and other professional activity in the faculty member’s discipline: Include conference papers/posters, publications, reviews, books, creative work, recordings, programs, conferences attended, etc. with specific dates.
8. Documentation of service: Include relevant materials that illustrate significant contributions.

A faculty member may request an external review of his or her scholarship to support an application for tenure and/or promotion. Faculty members wishing to do so must submit a written request to the Department Chair by September 17. The Peer Evaluation Committee may also request an external review of a faculty member’s scholarship by following the same procedure. In either case, the candidate is solely responsible for providing (a) an outline of specialty areas and materials that pertain to specialty areas and (b) a list of potential reviewers for each specialty area. The candidate, Department Chair, and Peer Evaluation Committee must agree concerning the qualifications of any external reviewer. If external review is contemplated, the candidate is advised to make preparations before the fall semester.

Upon receipt of the Chair’s Evaluation Report and completed Tenure, Promotion, and Renewal Form (available at the website for the Office of Academic Affairs at http://www.uncp.edu/aa/forms/), the faculty member must sign and return one copy of each to the chair within three working days. The faculty member also is required to sign the Peer Evaluation Report and its Tenure, Promotion, and Renewal Form. In both instances, the signature merely acknowledges having reviewed the reports and forms, but does not indicate agreement with their content. If the faculty member has received an unfavorable report from either the Department Chair or Peer Evaluation Committee, the faculty member may submit a rebuttal to the Dean within 10 days of receiving either report.

Responsibilities of the Department Chair

Department Chairs are responsible for notifying a faculty member in writing by August 15 of the evaluation year that a mandatory contract renewal or tenure evaluation is due. Additionally, Department Chairs are responsible for establishing Peer Evaluation Committees, conducting classroom observations of teaching, preparing and submitting all Chair’s Evaluation Reports that are required for contract renewal and tenure and/or promotion decisions, and completing the Tenure, Promotion, and Renewal Forms.

The Department Chair obtains the completed Peer Evaluation Committee Nomination Form from the candidate (forms available at the website for the Office of Academic Affairs at http://www.uncp.edu/aa/forms/). The chair appoints three faculty members to the Peer Evaluation Committee. Department Chairs from departments other than that of the evaluated faculty member may also serve on Peer Evaluation Committees, the Department Chair is obligated to appoint the candidate’s assured nominee so long as the nominee is qualified, but the Department Chair may substitute other qualified faculty members for the two remaining positions. It is strongly advised that all members of the Peer Evaluation Committee be tenured members of the evaluated faculty member’s home department; however, when circumstances dictate, other choices may be made. The members of the Committee should be faculty whose rank is equal to or higher than that sought by the candidate. Faculty members in phased retirement are eligible to serve.

In a three-person department, the third department member is automatically appointed to the Committee unless he or she is also being considered for tenure and/or promotion or contract renewal. Prohibited from serving on a Peer Evaluation Committee are the Department Chair of the faculty member’s department, members of the Promotion and Tenure Committee, and any faculty member undergoing contract renewal or tenure and/or promotion evaluation during the same academic year.

By September 7, the Department Chair must send a letter notifying Peer Evaluation Committee members of their appointment, and the time and date of an initial meeting, with copies to the candidate and the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. The Department Chair will submit the candidate’s materials to the Peer Evaluation Committee.

The Department Chair’s Evaluation Report for tenure and promotion decisions should include information from classroom observations each lasting at least 30 minutes in two separate courses. If the faculty member is teaching online, provisions must be made for observation of online teaching. (See Online Course Management Policy and Procedures, Part 1.d available from the website for the Office of Academic Affairs at http://www.uncp.edu/aa/policies/). The Department Chair prepares the Student Evaluation Report by summarizing in a narrative the quantitative summaries and individual comments given by students. The Chair prepares this report in a similar fashion to the annual evaluation by combining the results of the previous three annual Student Evaluation Reports. See above for a discussion of student evaluations.

The Department Chair must prepare a report and make a recommendation for tenure and/or promotion. In completing this report, the Department Chair considers the faculty member’s self-evaluation, supporting documentation, student evaluations, and classroom observations. Other input from students, colleagues, external sources, and University administrators may also be used. The Standard Performance Rating Scale is to be followed in making the final recommendation. See the Format for Evaluation Reports for the areas to be addressed in the Chair’s Evaluation Report for tenure and/or promotion.

The Department Chair provides the faculty member with two completed, signed, and dated copies of the Chair’s Evaluation Report, including a completed Tenure, Promotion, and Renewal Form, for the faculty member’s review and signature. The Department Chair at that time conducts a conference with the faculty member to explain the report, receive feedback, and discuss future directions. Finally, within three days of the conference the Department Chair obtains the signature of the faculty member on one set of copies that becomes part of the Department Chair’s full report. When a faculty member signs and returns any evaluation report, such action shall indicate merely that the faculty member acknowledges being apprised of its contents, not that he or she agrees with it. The Chair’s Evaluation Report is forwarded to the Dean of the relevant school or college by November 8.

Responsibilities of the Peer Evaluation Committee

Under the guidance of its chair, the Peer Evaluation Committee is charged with preparing and submitting a Peer Evaluation Report based on the following items: the portfolio submitted by the faculty member undergoing evaluation for tenure and/or promotion, classroom observations, and external review if necessary.

A Peer Evaluation Committee’s first task is to elect a chair, who then notifies the Department Chair of his or her election. The Committee chair is responsible for conducting meetings, insuring that all pertinent provisions of the Faculty Evaluation Model are followed, using standard parliamentary procedure in reaching all major decisions, insuring confidentiality of the proceedings, and preparing and distributing the Committee’s report. The Department Chair assists the peer evaluation process. By September 17, the Department Chair provides to the chair of the Peer Evaluation Committee the candidate’s portfolio.

At least two members of the Committee must conduct classroom observations of the candidate’s teaching. To promote reliability, a set of classroom observations should consist of at least one observation lasting at least 30 minutes in two separate courses by each observer. If the faculty member is teaching online, provisions must be made for observation of online teaching. (See Online Course Management Policy and Procedures which can be accessed at http://www.uncp.edu/aa/policies/online_course_management.pdf) Observers submit an oral or written report of their observations to the Committee. The Committee’s final report weighs and integrates these reports but does not incorporate them verbatim.

External review of scholarly work is not typically required for the Peer Evaluation Committee report. However, the Peer Evaluation Committee is obligated to initiate an external review under two circumstances: (a) if the candidate requests such review or (b) if, during the course of its deliberations, the Peer Evaluation Committee discovers that some scholarly works require external review. The candidate is responsible for providing an outline of the specialty areas involved and the materials that pertain to each specialty area and a list of potential reviewers for each specialty area (see discussion above in the section on “Responsibilities of the Faculty Member Being Evaluated”). The Committee is responsible for selecting from the candidate’s list three or more external reviewers for each set of materials, soliciting and receiving the external reviews, and providing a copy of the reviews to the Department Chair. If adjustments must be made to the slate of external reviewers, the candidate, the Department Chair, and the Peer Evaluation Committee must agree to these adjustments.

In the decision process of the Peer Evaluation Committee, the Standard Performance Rating Scale is used as a general guide. The Committee should strive for consensus in developing its conclusions, and its report (including the completed Tenure, Promotion and Renewal Form) must reflect a majority opinion. Nevertheless, a member of a Peer Evaluation Committee is obligated to object to any procedure believed to violate the provisions of the Model or to any conclusion believed to be inaccurate. The Committee should then deliberate these objections, consulting the Model as appropriate. When an issue cannot be resolved to each member’s satisfaction, the Committee is obligated to investigate the matter more fully. Inquiries can be made to the candidate, the Department Chair, the Faculty Evaluation Review Committee, or the Office for Academic Affairs at any time. When a minority member disagrees with the majority’s final action on any matter and believes that the overall evaluation has been affected, he or she is obligated to submit a narrative minority report detailing his or her position.

The Committee’s report consists of a narrative Peer Evaluation Report or approved substitute, including area weights from the candidate’s Self-Evaluation Report as completed for tenure and/or promotion; a Tenure, Promotion, and Renewal Form and any minority report. The Committee chair prepares the report, obtains the signatures of other members on the Tenure, Promotion, and Renewal Form, and provides the candidate with signed and dated copies of the Peer Evaluation Report and of the Tenure, Promotion, and Renewal Form. Within three days, the Committee chair obtains the candidate’s signature on one copy of the Peer Evaluation Report and the Tenure, Promotion, and Renewal Form. The signed copies the Committee’s final report are submitted to the Dean of the relevant school or college, along with all the candidate’s materials, by November 8.

When a faculty member signs and returns any evaluation report or form, such action shall indicate merely that the faculty member acknowledges being apprised of its contents, not that he or she agrees with it.

Responsibilities of the Dean

The Dean will read the Department Chair’s Report, the Peer Evaluation Committee’s Report, and all attached materials and then complete the Dean’s Report for Tenure/Promotion. That form will serve as a cover letter to the report package and will include as attachments the Chair’s Report, the Peer Evaluation Committee’s Report, any rebuttals, and the candidate’s materials. Within three days, the faculty member being evaluated will sign the Dean’s Report, acknowledging having seen it, but not necessarily agreement with it. The faculty member will retain one copy of the signed Dean’s Report.

The Dean will then forward his or her report, by December 15, with attached materials (Chair’s report, Peer Evaluation Committee’s report, and the candidate’s materials), to the Promotion and Tenure Committee, via the Office for Academic Affairs. In the event that the Dean’s recommendation does not agree either with that of the Department Chair or of the Peer Evaluation Committee, the Dean shall justify that decision with appropriate comments on the Dean’s Report for Tenure/Promotion form. The faculty member shall have the right to rebut comments made on the Dean’s Report form; such rebuttal shall be submitted to the Promotion and Tenure Committee via the Office of Academic Affairs.

Responsibilities of the Promotion and Tenure Committee

The Promotion and Tenure Committee receives the Chair’s Evaluation Report, the Peer Evaluation Report, the Dean’s Report, (plus any rebuttals of these), and the candidate’s portfolio from the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. The Committee may request any additional information that it deems necessary. It examines all facets of the application, reaches an equitable final decision, prepares a report on the candidate, and completes a Tenure, Promotion, and Renewal Form.

A candidate’s record should be evaluated in terms of documents submitted to the Committee and using the area weights given on the Self-Evaluation Report (as completed for tenure and/or promotion). The Committee may consult with the candidate, the Department Chair, the chair of the Peer Evaluation Committee, and administrators to obtain additional information about a candidate, as it deems appropriate. When a candidate has submitted a rebuttal to a Chair’s Evaluation Report or Peer Evaluation Report, the Promotion and Tenure Committee is obligated to consider it. If the Committee finds probable cause for concern, it should instruct the parties involved to submit, in a timely manner, either a counterrebuttal or a corrected report. In the event of a counter-rebuttal, the matter should be pursued to a satisfactory resolution.

The Committee’s final recommendation, as indicated on the Tenure, Promotion, and Renewal Form, should be an independent judgment based on a synthesis of the overall record. The Committee is to use the Standard Performance Rating Scale as a general guide, and it should strive for consistency over time. In the interest of fairness to candidates for tenure, the Committee should give very strong consideration to a set of consistently favorable annual evaluations from the Department Chair during the years prior to the tenure decision. In such cases, the Committee should have very compelling countervailing evidence to justify a recommendation against tenure and/or promotion.

After reaching a final decision on tenure and/or promotion, the Committee, as directed by the chair, prepares a draft report. This consists of a narrative Tenure and Promotion Report following the Guidelines for Evaluation Forms; any rebuttals, counter-rebuttals, or corrected reports from the Department Chair or Peer Evaluation Committee; and a completed Tenure, Promotion, and Renewal Form. If either the Chair or Vice Chair has abstained from a case, the non-abstaining party prepares the preliminary draft of the final report. The Committee deliberates on this draft until a majority approves it. The approved Tenure and Promotion Report, along with all other reports and the candidate’s materials, should be submitted within 14 days, no later than April 1, to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, and, at the same time, a copy of this advisory report sent to the candidate under consideration for tenure and/or promotion. Members may submit minority reports that are appended to the approved report. If the faculty member has received an unfavorable report from the Promotion and Tenure committee, the faculty member may submit a rebuttal to the Office for Academic Affairs within ten business days of receiving the report.

Responsibilities of the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs

The Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs shall receive and distribute all materials from the Department Chair, Peer Evaluation Committee, Dean of the faculty member’s school or college, Promotion and Tenure Committee, and the faculty member being evaluated. Upon receipt of the Tenure and Promotion Report, the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs considers all recommendations and supporting materials. Further consultations with the candidate or any of the participants in the evaluation process may be conducted.

The Provost and Vice Chancellor submits a final recommendation to the Chancellor no later than May 1, accompanied by all of the evaluation materials received, and at the same time, sends the candidate under consideration for promotion or tenure an unelaborated statement of this recommendation. The Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs is responsible for informing the candidate of the final action taken by the Chancellor, the vote of the Promotion and Tenure Committee, and any additional details that are deemed beneficial to a consistent and equitable evaluation process. The Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs will return the candidate’s materials to him or her at the conclusion of the evaluation process.

Responsibilities of the Chancellor

The Chancellor receives, reviews, and acts upon all evaluative materials provided by the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. After reviewing the materials produced by the final evaluation process, the Chancellor takes action regarding salary and employment.

Procedures for Contract Renewal Evaluations and Advisory Evaluations of Untenured Tenure-Track Faculty

Tenure-track faculty members receive a comprehensive contract renewal evaluation in their first year of employment at the University according to the Calendar found below. In subsequent years, a major evaluation for untenured faculty is optional at the discretion of the faculty member or Department Chair. These evaluations, if initiated by the Department Chair, may be for cause or, at the discretion of either the faculty member or Chair, may be advisory in nature. Peer evaluations of visiting faculty are at the option of the Department Chair, the appropriate Dean, and the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs

The procedures for these evaluations generally follow the procedures specified for tenure and/or promotion. Faculty members undergoing contract renewal evaluations are to collect student evaluations of their courses. Observation of teaching by the Department Chair and by members of the Peer Evaluation Committee is even more important to the evaluation process.

The faculty member being evaluated for an initial contract renewal must submit the materials listed below in a three-ring binder divided into seven sections labeled with headings. Portfolios submitted for contract renewal evaluations subsequent to the initial probationary evaluation should also include a section for copies of signed Department Chair annual evaluations.

1. A copy of the completed Peer Evaluation Nomination Form
2. A current Curriculum Vitae
3. A Self Evaluation Report
4. Student Evaluation Reports for all courses evaluated during the evaluation period. In case of a one-year contract renewal, the Department Chair will provide these reports to the Peer Evaluation Committee by the Department Chair as the evaluation period begins before the end of the first semester. (See Calendar below).
5. Documentation of effectiveness in teaching: Include course syllabi for a selection of courses taught at UNCP and course materials (selected assignments, handouts, PowerPoint slides, tests, student work, etc.) for one General Education course (if applicable), one upper division course (if applicable), and one graduate course (if applicable).
6. Documentation of scholarship and other professional activity in the faculty member’s discipline: Include conference papers/posters, publications, reviews, books, creative work, recordings, programs, conferences attended, copies of works in progress.
7. Documentation of service: Include relevant materials that illustrate significant contributions.

The Department Chair completes a Chair’s Evaluation Report and submits the report as described in the section on “Procedures for Tenure and/or Promotion Evaluation.” The Peer Evaluation Committee (if convened) submits a Peer Evaluation Report as described in the section on “Procedures for Tenure and/or Promotion Evaluation.” The Dean of the relevant school or college reviews the reports from the Chair and the Peer Evaluation Committee as well as any rebuttals by the faculty member. The Dean then completes the Dean’s Report of Contract Renewal Evaluation and submits it with all supporting materials to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.

The Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs reviews all the evaluative materials and recommends to the Chancellor whether or not to reappoint the candidate. The Chancellor makes the final decision on reappointment. Conditions governing non-reappointment are listed in the Faculty Handbook, Section II, Chapter 1; note that the faculty member’s competence is not the only factor considered in reappointment decision. The Code of the Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina also specifies deadlines for notification of non-reappointment.

A tenure-track faculty member or his/her Department Chair may initiate an advisory evaluation any time during the tenure-track process. Such evaluations are proactive steps to help faculty members improve performance and become more able to achieve tenure. The Department Chair may appoint a Peer Evaluation Committee as part of advisory evaluations. If advisory evaluations are conducted, the Committee should identify aspects of the faculty member’s performance that may present problems when a tenure decision is due. Advisory evaluations have no formal consequences for decisions about contract renewal, tenure, or promotion.

Procedures for Evaluation of Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Faculty

Full-time non-tenure faculty receive a major evaluation in their first year of employment at the University following the Calendar of Events for One-Year Contract Review of Non-Tenure Track Faculty. Nontenure track faculty may perform service but their main responsibility is teaching. As such, the portfolio materials and self-evaluation submitted for the one-year contract review evaluation will focus on those two areas. (See section entitled “Full-Time Appointments, Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Adjunct, and Visiting Faculty .”) In subsequent years, a major evaluation for non-tenure track faculty is optional at the discretion of the faculty member or Department Chair.

Non-tenure-track faculty members will be evaluated annually just as all other faculty members are. After the first year of employment at the University, non-tenure-track faculty receive major advisory evaluations at the discretion of the faculty member or Department Chair. Peer evaluations for non-tenuretrack faculty (including visiting faculty) may be included in this process at the option of the Department Chair and the appropriate Dean.

Non-tenure track faculty members are not covered by Section 604 of The Code of the Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina; however, during the term of their employment, Lecturers, Senior Lecturers, Adjunct and Visiting faculty have the right to seek recourse through UNC Pembroke grievance processes, for redress of grievances concerning discharge, academic freedom, salary adjustment, or other conditions of work.

Procedures for Evaluation of Tenured Faculty (Post-Tenure Review)

Tenured faculty must undergo a cumulative review process every five years, commencing from date of the tenure review (or from date of review for promotion, if such review occurs within the five-year period after tenure review).

The purpose of this review is to support and encourage excellence among tenured faculty by (a) continuing tenure for faculty whose performance has been found satisfactory, (b) providing a clear plan and a specified time line of not more than three years for improvement of performance of faculty whose performance has been found unsatisfactory, and (c) for those whose performance remains unsatisfactory, providing for the imposition of appropriate sanctions, which may include a recommendation for discharge in the most serious cases of incompetence.

In response to the Board of Governors’ and General Administration of The University of North Carolina’s request to develop institutional policies and procedures with regard to post-tenure review, the Post-Tenure Advisory Committee of The University of North Carolina at Pembroke has prepared this document outlining UNC Pembroke’s post-tenure review process. It is felt that this document adheres not only to the 1) broad principles outlined in the Executive Summary as found in the Report of the University of North Carolina Committee to Study Post-Tenure Review that was approved by the UNC Board of Governors on 16 May 1997, 2) the Guidelines as found in the Administrative Memorandum Number 371 issued by President C. D. Spangler, Jr. on 24 June 1997, and 3) Chapter VI of The Code of the University (August, 1988), but also parallels and reflects the basic tenets of the Faculty Evaluation Model as found in the UNCP Faculty Handbook. It must furthermore be noted that nothing in this Post-Tenure document prohibits the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and the Chancellor from making personnel decisions and taking personnel actions relative to reappointment, non-reappointment, and dismissal of faculty in warranted cases as indicated by the dismissal, non-reappointment, and termination policies of The University of North Carolina at Pembroke (UNCP Faculty Handbook, Section II, Chapter 1) and The Code of the Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina.

In the words of the Executive Summary cited above, “Post-tenure review is a comprehensive, formal, periodic evaluation of cumulative faculty performance, the prime purpose of which is to ensure faculty development and to promote faculty vitality (p. I).” This document further states that “institutional
policies shall explicitly involve peers in the review process.” In addition, it was noted in that report that the recommendations contained therein were intended “to strengthen the system of tenure and academic freedom while assuring on-going quality in the teaching, research, and service mission of The University of North Carolina.”

Thus presented below are the necessary 1) principles and criteria upon which the UNCP post-tenure review process is based, 2) principles governing the roles of individuals and groups, 3) evaluation procedures to be followed, 4) forms needed for the cumulative evaluation of tenured faculty, 5) a calendar of events for cumulative evaluation of tenured faculty, and 6) a specified time line of not more than three academic years for the implementation of the review process.

Principles and Criteria

Faculty at The University of North Carolina at Pembroke who are tenured must undergo the cumulative review process outlined below every five years. The purpose of this review is to support and encourage excellence among tenured faculty by (a) continuing tenure for faculty whose work is found satisfactory, (b) providing a clear plan and a specified time line of not more than three academic years for improvement of performance of faculty found unsatisfactory, and (c) for those whose performance remains unsatisfactory, providing for the imposition of appropriate sanctions, which may include in the most serious cases of incompetence a recommendation for discharge. (“A faculty member, who is the beneficiary of institutional guarantees of tenure, shall enjoy protection against unjust and arbitrary application of disciplinary penalties. During the period of such guarantees the faculty member may be discharged or suspended from employment or diminished in rank only for reasons of incompetence, neglect of duty or misconduct of such nature as to indicate that the individual is unfit to continue as a member of the faculty.” (The Code of the Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina, Section 603(1), http://www.northcarolina.edu/policy/index.php.)

All UNCP faculty are evaluated annually in three areas (teaching, scholarship, and service) according to a four-category Standard Performance Rating Scale. This annual review includes a(n) (a) Self-Evaluation Report, (b) Student Evaluation Report, (c) Chair’s Evaluation Report, (d) Chair’s Annual Merit Salary Increase Recommendation, (e) Dean’s Recommendation for Annual Salary Increase, and (f) recommendation of the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. In addition to these reports, Evaluations for Contract Renewal and Evaluations for Tenure and/or Promotion include a Peer Evaluation Report. The latter of these evaluation processes also includes a Tenure and Promotion Evaluation Report. The comprehensive, periodic, cumulative review process outlined herein for tenured faculty in no way detracts from, replaces, or diminishes the importance and significance of this annual performance review. Furthermore, a comprehensive review undertaken for promotion decision purposes may preclude the need for the cumulative review process outlined in this document until the fifth year following such review. As is true for all phases of the UNCP faculty evaluation model, a faculty member has the right to receive written feedback and to submit a rebuttal to any aspect of reports submitted by Deans, Department Chairs or Peer Evaluation Committees.

Written feedback from the Department Chair and Dean should include recognition for exemplary performance. A negative review must include a statement of the faculty member’s primary responsibilities and specific descriptions of shortcomings as they relate to the faculty member’s assigned duties. Any faculty response to a negative review will be forwarded with the packet to all subsequent levels of review.

In situations where a faculty member has received a rating of “unsatisfactory,” an individual development or career plan will be created that includes (a) specific steps designed to lead to improvement, (b) a specified time line in which improvement is expected to occur, and (c) a clear statement of consequences should adequate improvement not occur within the designated time line. These consequences may include dismissal as allowed by The UNC Code, 603 (1). During the period allowed for improvement, the Department Chair or Dean (in the case of a Department Chair) will meet with the faculty member on at least a semi-annual basis to review progress toward meeting the development plan’s specifications. If the faculty member’s duties are modified as a result of an unsatisfactory rating, the revised duties are specified in the development plan.

All phases of this evaluation process are to be guided by the principles set forth in the UNCP Faculty Evaluation Model (UNCP Faculty Handbook). Thus all “Principles and Criteria” relevant to faculty evaluation detailed in that document are also relevant to the post-tenure evaluation process and consequently are not repeated in this present document. These include principles and definitions, criteria, and documentation for the evaluation of teaching, scholarship, and service.

Principles Governing the Roles of Individuals and Groups

The Faculty Member Being Evaluated

All tenured faculty will undergo a cumulative review process every five years commencing from date of the tenure review. If during that period, the tenured faculty member is promoted, this cumulative review will not be necessary until the fifth year following the promotion review. When tenured faculty apply for promotion and undergo post-tenure review at the same time, separate decisions will be made on each. As indicated in the UNCP Faculty Evaluation Model, the faculty member’s self-evaluations should be “a primary source of information about the goals, methods, and degrees of success associated with his or her performance.” As is also stated therein, the annual weights assigned to each area by the individual being evaluated are to be taken into account by subsequent evaluators. Furthermore, the candidate has the right to submit a rebuttal pertaining to any aspect of the reports submitted by the Department Chair or the Peer Evaluation Committee or Dean.

Students

As is the case with all evaluation procedures at UNCP, student evaluations, while thought to play a prominent role in evaluating the faculty member’s teaching, do not by themselves provide sufficient information to judge fully a faculty member’s performance as a teacher. Hence, evaluation of teaching effectiveness at UNCP involves a variety of types of documentation. (For more information on the role that students play in the evaluation process at UNCP, see the section above on “Student Evaluation of Instruction.)

The Peer Evaluation Committee

The department or unit selects the Peer Evaluation Committee by a process agreed upon by the tenured faculty within the department or unit. The faculty member being evaluated cannot make the final selection of Committee members. The Peer Evaluation Committee is responsible for preparing and submitting a Peer Evaluation Report to the Dean of the faculty member’s college or school. This group is responsible for gathering appropriate information, assessing its implications, and formulating a coherent evaluation of the faculty member’s performance. Following completion of the Peer Evaluation Committee’s work, the Department Chair (or Dean) must consult with the Committee before sending the materials to the next level of review.

The Department Chair (or Dean for Department Chairs)

The Department Chair (Dean of the Chair’s school or college for Department Chairs) is responsible for writing his/her own recommendations (see Format for Faculty Evaluation Reports), and submitting this document to the Office of Academic Affairs.

The Dean of the Faculty Member’s School or College

The Dean will review the reports from the Chair and from the Peer Evaluation Committee as well as any supporting materials and rebuttals. The Dean will assess the performance of the faculty member based on the materials presented and will complete the Dean’s Recommendation for Post-Tenure Review. The Dean will give the faculty member a copy of the Dean’s recommendation and submit that recommendation, with all attached materials, to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.

The Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs

Based on the materials submitted by the Dean, the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs is responsible for taking appropriate actions concerning the status of each tenured faculty member who has undergone the cumulative review process. (For further information regarding the responsibilities of the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, see the section below on “Evaluation Procedures”). The Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, in consultation with the faculty member, the faculty member’s Department Chair (or Dean for Department Chairs), and the Dean of the relevant college or school, will also be responsible for constructing, monitoring, and evaluating satisfactory completion of any plan for improvement of performance for any faculty member whose performance has been judged unsatisfactory.

After reviewing the materials produced by this evaluation process, the Chancellor takes actions as deemed appropriate. In situations where a tenured faculty member has received a rating of “unsatisfactory,” and the identified deficiencies are not removed in the specified period of time, the Chancellor may impose sanctions, which may include discharge as allowed by The Code of the Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina, Section 603 (1).

Evaluation Procedures

The cumulative evaluation for tenured faculty provides a basis for the support and encouragement of excellence among tenured faculty by (a) continuing tenure for faculty whose work is found satisfactory, (b) providing a clear plan and a specified time line of not more than three academic years for improvement of performance of faculty found unsatisfactory, and (c) for those whose performance remains unsatisfactory, providing for the imposition of appropriate sanctions, which can include a recommendation for discharge. All tenured faculty will undergo this cumulative review process every five years. If during that period, the tenured faculty member is evaluated for promotion, this cumulative review may not be necessary until the fifth year following the conclusion of that process. The cumulative review process includes the faculty member, the Peer Evaluation Committee, the Department Chair (Dean of relevant college or school in the case of Department Chairs), the Dean of the faculty member’s college or school, the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, and the Chancellor.

At the point in time when the cumulative evaluation for tenured faculty process is to begin, the faculty member involved will be so notified in writing by his/her Department Chair or by the Dean of the relevant college or school if the review involves the Department Chair (see Calendar of Events below). The faculty member will subsequently submit to his or her Department Chair (Dean of relevant college or school for Department Chairs) a copy of (a) Self Evaluations for the previous five years, (b) Student Evaluation summaries for the previous five years, (c) Chair Evaluations for the previous five years, (d) Dean’s annual evaluation reports for the previous five years, (e) any additional information since the last annual evaluation that is deemed pertinent, and (f) a completed copy of the Peer Evaluation Committee Nomination Form . In the initial stages of this process, these various materials might be collected from a variety of sources (the faculty member’s own copies, copies in the possession of the Department Chair, and/or copies in the possession of the Office for Academic Affairs).

The Department Chair (or Dean for Department Chairs) then (a) appoints three faculty members to the Peer Evaluation Committee in the manner described above, (b) calls this group together for its initial meeting in order to orient the members to the process, and (c) makes available to the members the materials cited above.

The responsibilities of the Peer Evaluation Committee will be consistent with those described in the sections above on other evaluation processes. The Peer Evaluation Committee and the Department Chair (Dean of relevant college or school for Department Chairs), working independently of each other, are responsible for preparing and submitting a Post-Tenure Evaluation Recommendation Form (available from the website for the Office of Academic Affairs at http://www.uncp.edu/aa/forms/) to the Dean of the faculty member’s college or school and, through the Dean, to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. These reports, based on the various documents that have been submitted, will include a rating of the overall performance of the faculty member as either satisfactory or unsatisfactory and a narrative justification. If the ranking indicates unsatisfactory performance, the Committee’s report has the option of including specific suggestions that might lead to improvement. The faculty member undergoing this cumulative post-tenure review process will be given two completed, signed, and dated copies of each of these reports (the Peer Evaluation Committee’s report and the Department Chair’s report). Within three days, the faculty member being evaluated returns one copy that has been signed and dated. This signature indicates merely that the faculty member acknowledges being apprised of its contents, not that he/she agrees with it. In all cases, the faculty member being reviewed may submit a rebuttal to the Dean within ten days of having received these reports. The respective Chair (Peer Evaluation Committee or Department) submits these two reports to the Dean of the faculty member’s school or college.

The Dean of the relevant college or school will review the reports from the Department Chair (if available) and the Peer Evaluation Committee, including any supporting materials provided by the Chair or Peer Evaluation Committee and any rebuttals submitted by the faculty member being evaluated. The Dean will then complete the Dean’s Report for Post-Tenure Review, including his or her evaluation of the faculty member’s performance as satisfactory or unsatisfactory. The Dean’s Report will serve as a cover letter to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and will include as attachments the reports from the Department Chair and from the Peer Evaluation Committee along with all supporting documents. Within three days, the faculty member will sign the Dean’s Report, acknowledging having seen it but not necessarily agreement with it. The faculty member will retain one copy of the signed Dean’s Recommendation. The Dean will then forward his or her report, with the attached materials, to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.

If the Dean does not agree with the evaluation of the Chair and/or the Peer Evaluation Committee, the Dean must justify that judgment with appropriate comments. The faculty member has the right to submit a rebuttal to the Dean’s evaluation within 10 days of signing the report.

The Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs will review the Dean’s report, with the reports of the Department Chair and the Peer Evaluation Committee and all supporting documents attached. In the event that the ratings in the reports submitted unanimously indicate unsatisfactory performance, the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs will communicate this finding in writing to the faculty member, the Department Chair (unless the faculty member is the Department Chair), and the Dean of the faculty member’s college or school. It will be responsibility of the Department Chair (or Dean if the faculty member concerned is the Department Chair), in collaboration with the faculty member evaluated, to draw up an individual development or career (remediation) plan. The plan will include steps designed to lead to improvement in the faculty member’s performance to a satisfactory level, a specified time frame of not more than three academic years in which this improvement is to occur, and a clear statement of consequences should improvement to a satisfactory level of performance not occur within the specified time frame. After review and concurrence by the Dean of the faculty member’s college or school, the plan will be submitted to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, who must approve the plan, taking into account the need for institutional resources to support the faculty member’s efforts to
remediate identified deficiencies in his or her performance.

At the end of the time period specified in the remediation plan, the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, in consultation with the faculty member’s Department Chair (Dean, if the faculty member is a Department Chair), and Dean of the faculty member’s college or school, will determine if the provisions of the plan have been met. If so, the faculty member will be judged satisfactory in performance for the current post-tenure review cycle. Note that the existence of a remediation plan does not defer or postpone any succeeding post-tenure review. If the provisions of the remediation plan have not been met and the required improvement not occurred, the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs shall recommend sanctions to the Chancellor, under the provisions of University policy on Discharge and the Imposition of Serious Sanctions and The Code of the Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina. Such sanctions may include reduction in rank, discharge, or other disciplinary action.

If performance ratings unanimously indicate satisfactory performance or if there is disagreement among the reports on the satisfactory or unsatisfactory performance of the faculty member being evaluated, the Provost and Chancellor for Academic Affairs will accept the performance review report with no further action. In the case where a faculty member’s performance is found to be unsatisfactory, the Provost will take appropriate action (s). If any elements of unsatisfactory performance have not been improved to a satisfactory level in the specified period, the Provost’s action may include discharge as specified by The Code of the Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina Section 603 (1).

Evaluation of Department Chairs

Each Department Chair is evaluated annually by the Dean of his or her college or school and by the Office of Academic Affairs. Procedures parallel those for annual evaluations of all faculty, except that the duties normally carried out by the Department Chair are handled by the Chair’s Dean (see the section above on “Procedures for Annual Evaluation”). A Chair is evaluated in terms of teaching, scholarship, and service using area weights deemed appropriate for the department. There will, of course, be no merit salary increase recommendation from the Department Chair. As part of the annual evaluation of the Chair’s faculty responsibilities, the Dean will schedule a conference with each Chair to discuss the Dean’s evaluation of the Chair’s performance. The Dean will prepare a written annual evaluation report and present it to the Department Chair at least three days before the annual evaluation conference is to be held. At the evaluation conference, the Department Chair signs the evaluation report and receives a copy.

In evaluating a Chair’s performance both as a faculty member and as an administrator, the Chair’s Dean and the Office for Academic Affairs consider direct knowledge of the Department Chair’s administrative performance, input from other administrators, and input from faculty, as well as documentation submitted by the Department Chair. The Dean takes in account Department Chairs’ administrative responsibilities as part of the Department Chairs’ annual evaluation, although formal faculty assessments are not collected each year. Departmental Chairs’ administrative responsibilities are assessed as part of the procedure for renewable terms for Department Chairs (Faculty Handbook, Section II, Chapter 4). Briefly, the Office of Academic Affairs evaluates Chairs in the second year of service as Chair. At this time, the Dean will seek input from the faculty concerning performance of the Chair’s administrative responsibilities and will distribute evaluation forms (available at the website for the Office of Academic Affairs at http://www.uncp.edu/aa/forms/) to each full-time faculty member in the department. The forms will be returned directly to the Dean.

Department Chairs who may be candidates for tenure and/or promotion will be evaluated under the tenure and promotion procedures in Section II, Chapter 3. The Chair’s Dean will carry out the duties normally the responsibility of the Department Chair. Necessarily, however, there will be no recommendation from the Department Chair regarding the tenure and/or promotion decision.

Department Chairs will receive a contract renewal evaluation based on rank and initial contract length just as any other probationary faculty member does (see Section II, Chapter 1). Procedures normally the responsibility of the Department Chair will be handled by the Chair’s Dean. Necessarily, however, there will be no recommendation from the Department Chair regarding reappointment.

Any Department Chair, just as any other faculty member, can call for an advisory evaluation. The Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs may request advisory evaluations. Advisory evaluations have no formal consequences for decisions about contract renewal, tenure, or promotion.

Department Chairs are appointed for terms of four years. They may be continued in the Chair’s position for one additional term. Procedures for appointment and for evaluation of Chairs with respect to term continuation and renewal are specified in the Faculty Handbook, Section II, Chapter 4.

Forms for Use in the Faculty Evaluation Process

The following forms related to faculty evaluation are available at the website for the Office of Academic Affairs at http://www.uncp.edu/aa/forms/

• Format for Evaluation Reports
• Peer Evaluation Committee Nomination Form
• Peer Evaluation Committee Request Form for Post-Tenure Review
• Tenure, Promotion, and Renewal Form
• Student Evaluation of Instruction
• Annual Merit Salary Increase Recommendation Form
• Standard Performance Rating Scale
• Department Chair Evaluation Form
• Post-Tenure Evaluation Recommendation Form
• Format for Dean’s Report for Probationary Contract Review
• Format for Dean’s Recommendation for Annual Salary Increase
• Format for Dean’s Report for Tenure/Promotion
• Format for Dean’s Report for Post-Tenure Review

Calendars of Events for Evaluation

Typical Calendar of Events for Annual Evaluations

The events listed below are intended as guidelines only; dates are approximate and may be altered as conditions warrant. Specific policies and procedures are found in the full Faculty Evaluation Plan.

Typical Calendar of Events for Tenure and/or Promotion

The events listed below are intended as guidelines only; dates are approximate and may be altered as conditions warrant. Specific policies and procedures are found in the full Faculty Evaluation Plan. If a date listed in this table falls on a weekend or holiday, the deadline is automatically moved to the next business day.

The faculty member under consideration for tenure and/or promotion is to receive a copy of the various reports as they are submitted. Note that the UNCP Board of Trustees approves tenure and promotion decisions.

Calendar of Events for One-Year Contract Review of Non-Tenure Track Faculty

The events listed below are intended as guidelines only; dates are approximate and may be altered as conditions warrant. Specific policies and procedures are found in the full Faculty Evaluation Model.

Calendar of Events for Initial Two-Year Contract Review

The dates listed below should be followed. If the date falls on a day that administrative offices are closed, the deadline will be the first day the offices reopen. Other relevant policies and procedures are found in the full Faculty Evaluation Plan.

Calendar of Events for Initial Three-Year Contract Review

The dates listed below should be followed. If the date falls on a day that administrative offices are closed, the deadline will be the first day the offices reopen. Other relevant policies and procedures are found in the full Faculty Evaluation Plan.

Typical Calendar of Events for Post-Tenure Review

The events listed below are intended as guidelines; dates may be altered as conditions warrant. Specific policies and procedures are found elsewhere in this document and in the full UNCP Faculty Evaluation Model. If a date listed in this table falls on a weekend or holiday, the deadline is automatically moved to the next business day.