Section 5: Faculty Evaluation Procedures
5.1 Annual Evaluation PRINCIPLES
5.1.1 SACS Expectations The Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement manual (revised 2004) of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, Commission on Colleges (SACS), states the following expectation in Section 3, Comprehensive Standards (§3.7.2): “The institution regularly evaluates the effectiveness of each faculty member in accord with published criteria, regardless of contractual or tenured status.” As SACS further states, in the introduction to Section 3 of the manual: “It is implicit in every Comprehensive Standard mandating a policy or procedure that the policy or procedure is in writing, approved through appropriate institutional processes, published in appropriate institutional documents accessible to those affected by the policy or procedure, and implemented and enforced by the institution.” In order to conform with SACS expectations of good institutional practice, the University includes systematic individual faculty performance evaluations among the steps it takes to assure institutional effectiveness and maintain its regional accreditation.
5.1.2 Board of Visitors Mandate Annual evaluation of faculty has been mandated by the
Board of Visitors. The evaluation system is required to be multi-sourced and to place each faculty member on an evaluation level between 0 and 3.
0 = unsatisfactory = The individual’s performance has not met minimum performance expectations.
1 = less than one year for evaluation, or less than effective - needs improvement. When used in cases other than a faculty member who is in her/his first year at UMW, this rating implies that the faculty member is only barely meeting the minimum expected level of performance and that room for significant improvement exists.
2 = effective. This rating implies that the individual has been productive and effective in meeting all goals and represents the average performance expected of UMW faculty. A rating of effective should always be interpreted in a favorable light.
3 = outstanding. This rating should be applied to faculty members whose performance is determined to be well above the effective level of expectations.