Annual Merit Evaluations
An effective and trusted evaluation process continues to be a key component in our drive
for excellence at the School of Business and Economics. In keeping with the guidelines
in our faculty manual, the annual evaluations facilitate resource allocation and personnel
decisions within the School. The annual review is expected to be qualitative rather than
quantitative and offers constructive feedback to faculty. The Chairs are also expected to
provide detailed evaluations with full justifications to each faculty member.
The evaluation process follows the guidelines in our College and School Faculty
Administration Manual (section IV-n) and newly drafted policies from Academic Affairs.
Faculty Workload Plan and Faculty Activity Report and Merit Statement
Each faculty member must complete two documents for their annual review. The
College of Charleston Faculty Administration Manual also requests that an updated
CV be provided. The Faculty Activity Report and Merit Statement describes the
previous year’s teaching, research and service activities and the Faculty Workload Plan is
a planning document for the following year’s activities. As indicated in the College
Faculty and Administration Manual, the reporting period is January 1 – December 31. A
copy of both documents should be submitted in digital format to both Department Chairs
and the Dean’s office.
Performance Review: Appraisal Letter, Comprehensive rating form and interview
Department Chairs will use the documentation provided by faculty as well as
supplemental information, such as student evaluations to develop a comprehensive rating
and appraisal letter for each faculty member.
Appraisal letter. Appraisal letters will provide a thorough evaluation of faculty. I
have asked the chairs to provide data and examples to justify comments in the
appraisal letter. The appraisal letter should summarize information from the rating
form and be constructive. Areas where improvements are necessary must be clearly
delineated and areas of excellence enumerated.
Comprehensive Rating Form
The following categories will be used as they were last year.
I. Does Not Meet Expectations – Individuals in this classification are not making
progress toward tenure and promotion if tenured or to satisfaction for third year
review. Current College policies indicate that they will not receive merit raises.
II. Demonstrating Professional Competence in all three evaluation areas - The
merit threshold is defined as demonstrating professional competence in all three
evaluation areas (teaching, research and professional development, and service)
1 of 3
according to criteria and standards articulated by schools and departments. Faculty
members must demonstrate professional competency in all three evaluative areas to
be considered for higher level ratings.
It has been agreed across campus that this minimum evaluation is not sufficient for
tenure or promotion or progress toward satisfactory post tenure review for tenured
faculty or senior instructors.
III. High Professional Competence - A second designation of quality of
performance is that of high professional competence. Faculty members receiving
this designation will normally exhibit evidence of consistently high professional
competence in all three areas of evaluation. In exceptional cases, very strong
performance in one or more areas may compensate for less strong performance in
another.
IV. Exceptional Professional Performance - A third designation of quality of
performance is that of exceptional professional performance. A faculty member
receiving this designation will normally exhibit high professional competence in all
three areas of evaluation and exceptional performance in either teaching or research
and professional development. This individual will normally be performing, in the
area of exceptional performance, at a level substantially beyond college-wide
expectations for promotion to the next rank.
In designating a faculty member as meeting one of the designations of quality of
performance above, or as not meeting the merit threshold, chairs should make
qualitative assessments of performance and apply the criteria flexibly. In addition,
departments and schools may have their own criteria for these designations.
Areas of Professional Competence
The school will continue to use the evaluation structure indicated below.
Teaching - While student evaluations continue to play a significant role in
teaching ratings, the Chairs have developed additional criteria by which to rate
faculty performance. The Chairs agreed to implement classroom visitations and
written feedback for all untenured faculty and for faculty wishing promotion.
Chairs will appoint faculty mentors to visit classes several times during each
semester and to produce a brief synopsis that the faculty member may include in
his or her documentation for the annual evaluation and subsequent rank and
tenure processes. It remains our wish that this be a collegial occurrence and that
tenured faculty would invite peers and their Chair to review their classroom
performance.
I have asked that special emphasis be given to innovative teaching and the
application of pedagogy that truly engages our students in the learning process.
2 of 3
As a student oriented College and School in which student learning is paramount,
we need to be able to identify and reward great teaching.
Research –A rating of Meets Professional Competency in Research requires
that a faculty member exceed our base line of at least one refereed publication in a
three year period. Research is also evaluated over a three year period.
Service – While service makes up a small percentage of our evaluation process, it
is nonetheless an important component of academic life. Faculty are encouraged
to participate in appropriate services as indicated in the School’s and College’s
faculty manuals.
Interview
Each continuing faculty member will meet with his or her chair to discuss the Chair’s
evaluation and plans for the coming year. Following the interview, the Chair and the
faculty member will sign the evaluation form to indicate that they have met.
Appeals
Appeals may be submitted to the Dean in writing within ten working days of the
evaluation interview. The Dean will convene with the Chair and faculty member to
discuss the issues raised and if no resolution is reached, a decision by the Dean in
writing will be delivered to both parties. Further appeals are described in the
Faculty/Administration Manual.
Transparency – The Department Chairs will review criteria and comparative ratings
across departments in an effort to achieve consistency throughout the School. This
will occur subsequent to the collection of the faculty reports but prior to the final
determination of ratings and preparation of appraisal letters. Each chair will provide
a report of the number of faculty in each category and a summary will be provided for
the entire School.
3 of 3