Compliance Status

Louisiana State University and A&M College is in compliance with this principle.

Narrative

Louisiana State University and A&M College (LSU) effectively evaluates every faculty member using published criteria, regardless of contractual or tenured status. The manner in which faculty members are evaluated are consistent with the LSU mission of “employing faculty who are excellent teacher-scholars, nationally competitive in research and creative activities, and who contribute to a world-class knowledge base that is transferable to educational, professional, cultural, and economic enterprises” [1]. A well-qualified faculty is the foundation of institutional excellence in teaching, research, and service. To promote excellence, an institution must ensure that the performance of the faculty is critically evaluated. LSU follows well-established policies. The LSU Board of Supervisors stipulates the review of faculty in Permanent Memorandum 35 (PM-35) [2]. LSU Policy Statements (PS) clearly outline the evaluation procedures for tenured and tenure-track faculty (PS 36-T) [3] and for non-tenure track faculty (PS 36-NT) [4].  Each policy requires that, normally, there be one reviewing officer of a faculty member, the department chair.  The Louisiana Board of Regents recognizes that all institutions have in place a policy for faculty evaluation [5]. 

Annual Reviews for Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty

In the case of tenured and tenure-track faculty, PS 36-T clearly states that

All faculty are subject to reporting requirements, and are entitled to regular and accurate reviews and evaluations.

The annual review process should be understood and carried out in keeping with the principles of academic freedom, and with the awareness that faculty work is in large part a matter of multiyear projects and commitments. The import of a single year’s report or evaluation will often be incremental in nature. The process is a framework for businesslike and collegial communication.  The process will disclose and identify the strengths and weaknesses in job performance that may have a bearing on rewards or other decisions affecting the faculty member. The chair will offer advice and assistance for the remediation of negative factors, if any.

PS-36-T does not prescribe the procedure to be used in complete detail. The rules of the department or college may (and should) further specify and regulate the criteria, the process, and the timetable; and may provide additional formal reviews, of various kinds and frequencies, that fit around this framework.

In each annual review process for a faculty member, there will be only one reviewing officer, the department chair. When the faculty member is serving as an administrator—for example, as the chair—the line officer to whom he/she reports will be the reviewing officer. The reviewing officer will have primary responsibility for the process, but will incorporate evaluations by others as appropriate, for example when the faculty member has duties in more than one unit. Sampling of student opinions should be carried out in such a manner as to assure that students are free to convey honest opinions without fear of reprisal and that ratings are both reliable and valid.

The process will occur every year for every faculty member, except when he or she is being reviewed for reappointment, promotion, or tenure, or has been given notice of non-reappointment or termination. Other exceptions: He or she may suffer from physical, mental, or emotional illness, or other condition, to such a degree that a job performance evaluation cannot reasonably proceed in disregard thereof. In such a case the reviewing officer, acting under the guidance of HRM and with approval by the line officer to whom he or she reports, may suspend or modify the annual review process. See PS-59 Employee Assistance Program [6].

Appropriate areas for consideration in the review are the traditional ones of land-grant universities:  scholarship, teaching, and service. The weight to be accorded to each is consistent with the department's mission and with the faculty member’s job duties and work assignments.

In PS-36-T [3], scholarship is defined as:  “contributions to knowledge, in the disciplines appropriate to the department, at a level of quality and significance that is competitive by national standards.”  Examples include books, essays, articles, patents, creations in visual arts or other media, and designs or build works.  Examples of ways to evaluate scholarship include peer-reviewed publications, awards for excellence, invitations to give performances, presentations, exhibitions or lectures, and awards of grants and contracts.   

The faculty is expected to contribute to the teaching mission of the department and to perform an appropriate role in the development of curricula and educational policy.  Contributions to teaching include, but are not limited to, classroom instruction; direction of independent study, including creative and artistic projects; supervision of students in clinical work; and contributions to committees and other entities concerned with teaching, curricula, or educational policy. Examples of ways to evaluate teaching include, but are not limited to formal student evaluations (these are required for each course a faculty member teaches), peer observation, students’ performance on standardized tests, or honors or special recognition for teaching excellence from the institution or from professional organizations.

Service is defined as other contributions to the department, the university, the academic profession, or the broader community that support the primary missions of scholarship and teaching.  Service can be a substantial and explicit part of a faculty member’s responsibilities, for example, if the faculty member occupies an administrative position. Examples of service include, but are not limited to, participation on a certification or editorial board, holding office or other positions of responsibilities in a professional organization, an advisory role with a student organization, or a referee for journal articles or grants.

The extent and nature of expectations in the three areas may also be described in the procedures of departments and other units. The chair uses these evaluations to determine the effectiveness of the faculty performance over the year. Examples of an untenured professor review [7] and of three consecutive annual reviews of a tenured professor are attached [8] [9] [10]. 

Annual Reviews for Non-Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty

Policy Statement PS-36-NT [3] defines non-tenured/tenure-track faculty as instructors, general librarians, professionals in residence, visiting faculty of any rank, research series (at any rank), clinical specialist series (at any rank), and the professional practice series (at any rank).  It should be noted that “except when there is an explicit statement to the contrary, no provision of PS-36-

NT or of a unit’s rules will apply to faculty members who are part-time or part-year employees; nor will any provision, or lack of a provision, be interpreted to diminish their rights deriving from other policies or regulations.”

The requirements for review are similar to those of the tenure-track/tenured faculty: 

All faculty are subject to reporting requirements, and are entitled to regular and accurate reviews and evaluations.

The annual review process should be understood and carried out in keeping with the principles of academic freedom, and with the awareness that faculty work is in large part a matter of multiyear projects and commitments. The import of a single year’s report or evaluation will often be incremental in nature. The process is a framework for businesslike and collegial communication.

The process will disclose and identify the strengths and weaknesses in job performance that may have a bearing on rewards or other decisions affecting the faculty member. The chair will offer advice and assistance for the remediation of negative factors, if any. PS-36-T does not prescribe the procedure to be used in complete detail. The rules of the department or college may (and should) further specify and regulate the criteria, the process, and the timetable; and may provide additional formal reviews, of various kinds and frequencies, that fit around this framework.

In each annual review process for a faculty member, there will be only one reviewing officer, the department chair. When the faculty member is serving as an administrator—for example, as the chair—the line officer to whom he/she reports will be the reviewing officer. The reviewing officer will have primary responsibility for the process, but will incorporate evaluations by others as appropriate, for example when the faculty member has duties in more than one unit. Sampling of student opinions should be carried out in such a manner as to assure that students are free to convey honest opinions without fear of reprisal and that ratings are both reliable and valid.

The process will occur every year for every faculty member, except when he or she is being reviewed for reappointment, promotion, or tenure, or has been given notice of non-reappointment or termination. Other exceptions: He or she may suffer from physical, mental, or emotional illness, or other condition, to such a degree that a job performance evaluation cannot reasonably proceed in disregard thereof. In such a case the reviewing officer, acting under the guidance of HRM and with approval by the line officer to whom he or she reports, may suspend or modify the annual review process. See PS-59 [6].

Appropriate areas of consideration for the non-tenured/tenure track faculty evaluation are the traditional ones of land-grant universities:  scholarship, teaching, and service.  However, the weight to be accorded each will be consistent with the department’s mission and with the faculty member’s job duties and work assignments. The extent and nature of expectations in the three areas may also be described in the rules of departments and other units.  These expectations may be quite different from the tenured/tenure track faculty; for example, most instructors are not expected to contribute to scholarship.  The definitions and criteria for judging performance in scholarship, teaching, and service are similar to those for the tenured/tenure-track faculty. The chair uses these evaluations to determine the effectiveness of the faculty performance over the year. Examples of three consecutive annual reviews of a non-tenure-track instructor are attached [11] [12] [13].

Comprehensive Review of Tenure-Track Faculty

Guidelines for review of non-tenured, tenure-track faculty, including annual reviews, reappointment reviews, and promotion are outlined in PS-36-T [3].  Generally, these guidelines apply to promotion from assistant professor to associate professor with tenure; however, they may also apply to those faculty coming to LSU as untenured associate professors or professors.  For assistant professors, the review for tenure is done in conjunction with a review for promotion during the mandatory year of review, typically the sixth year toward tenure.  Reappointment reviews are conducted at the end of term appointments and typically result in either termination or continuation of a contract at LSU. Provisions have been made in PS-36-T to allow faculty members to “Stop the Tenure Clock,” meaning a tenure-track member may request to extend the mandatory tenure-track period due to an exceptional circumstance. After any reappointment review, all faculty members on a tenure track will continue to have annual reviews that are expected to provide specific advice to aid the faculty member in obtaining promotion and tenure.  If the contract is continued, assistant professors are usually reviewed for tenure at six years (early consideration is possible).  An example of a redacted partial promotion and tenure package is attached [14].

Annual Reviews for Graduate Teaching Assistants

Although graduate teaching assistants (GTA) are not considered faculty, they are an important component of the LSU instructional efforts and, as such, undergo systematic evaluation. Evaluation of GTAs is covered in PS-85:  Preparation of Teaching Assistants [15].  The duties of a GTA can range from grading exams to being the instructor-of-record for a course.  No GTA with fewer than 18 hours of graduate work in the discipline can be assigned as the instructor of record.  As with the tenured/tenure-track and non-tenure-track faculty, the evaluation of GTAs is essential to ensuring quality education at the undergraduate level and to the preparation as effective teachers for those GTAs who will become academicians.  Evaluation of the GTA includes: (1) student evaluations for all courses in which the GTA is the instructor of record, (2) evaluation by a faculty mentor at the end of the first semester in which a GTA serves as an instructor of record, and (3) an annual evaluation of every GTA’s overall performance.  Departments must file with the Graduate School, for approval, a description of departmental preparation programs for teaching assistants, which must include a mentoring program and thorough-going evaluations of teaching performance.

Additional information on evaluations as they relate to faculty development is covered in the compliance certificate for Comprehensive Standard 3.7.3.