4. / Evaluation of Teaching/Librarianship
WSU Policies & Procedures --http://webs.wichita.edu/inaudit/ch4_22.htm

The following policy provisions are established with the understanding that variety in evaluation procedures at the department/college/school/University Libraries level shall be preserved, subject to providing a fair evaluation for each individual candidate based on the department's mission.

4.1 / General Policy
    A. All faculty, with half time or more appointment and those unclassified professionals who have teaching/librarianship responsibilities amounting to 50 percent or more of their workload are to be evaluated at least once a year regardless of whether or not they are in the Academic Affairs division of the University

    B. There shall be a common calendar for the evaluation of untenured faculty and for annual merit evaluation.

    C. Department evaluation procedures shall focus on the year in question while providing for at least two contiguous years in each review, in order to make appropriate adjustments in salaries based on previous years with limited or no salary allocation moneys and to determine patterns and continuity in academic accomplishments.

    D. The department shall be established as the primary site of evaluation. The chair of the department is responsible for maintaining the current departmental evaluation policy in an open file. The following records shall be established and maintained in individual faculty files kept in the departmental office:

1. Departmental instructions to persons being evaluated including the requirement to discuss flexible performance goals for the coming year with the chair. The understanding is that these goals can be re-discussed and modified during the course of the year.
2. Departmental evaluations for each person, including assessment of success in attainment of performance goals.
3. The relationship between evaluation and departmental pay recommendation for each person.
4. The rationale for changes in departmental evaluations and pay recommendations made by persons outside the department.

    E. There shall be no information requested for annual evaluation that is not intended for that purpose.

    F. Persons being evaluated should be informed of any submitted information that was not reviewed by the evaluators involved in the evaluation process.

    G. There shall be developed procedures for an open information flow between affected parties as per the procedure outlined below, and an opportunity for the person being evaluated to appeal at each stage of the process that will meet the prevailing budget time line requirements.

    H. The majority of any departmental review committee, if established according to the following procedure, must be tenured faculty.

4.11 / Procedures

4.112 / Departmental Faculty:
The faculty of each department shall establish a written policy for annual evaluation of all faculty with half-time or more appointments and those unclassified professionals who have teaching/librarianship responsibilities amounting to 50 percent or more of their workload.

Chairs and deans shall review departmental policy and meet with the departmental faculty in the interest of any changes that should be made.

The faculty of each department shall cast a secret ballot at least every third year on whether they desire to elect annually a faculty evaluation committee for the purpose of evaluating the department members with teaching/librarianship responsibilities and providing merit pay recommendations to the department chair.  If such a committee is established, its chair will meet with the department chair to report on the committee's recommendations for merit pay distribution within the department.  If the departmental faculty elect not to establish a committee, the department chair will have sole responsibility of evaluating the department's teaching personnel/librarian personnel and generating the department recommendation for merit pay distribution within the department.

4.113 / Department Chairs\Directors (hereafter referred to as chairs):
Chairs shall transmit departmental pay recommendations for the entire department, according to faculty established policy, to each person being evaluated as soon as these are developed and ready for transmittal to the dean.  At that time, each person being evaluated may appeal his/her individual pay recommendations to the department chair.

Chairs shall transmit departmental pay recommendations to their dean along with a prioritized list of individuals they recommend for any additional salary increases.

4.114 / Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs and Research and Deans:
Deans shall transmit their pay recommendations to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs and Research for the entire department.  At the same time, the dean will explain to the chairs any changes recommended by the dean in the department's salary recommendations.  The chairs are responsible for immediately informing the person being evaluated.

The Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs and Research shall transmit that office's departmental pay recommendations for the entire department to each dean who has the responsibility of informing the department chairs as soon as soon as these are developed.  The chair is responsible for informing the person being evaluated at that time.

Administrators above the department level shall prepare a written explanation, attaching any relevant documents, of all changes they make in pay recommendations sent to their office.  The explanation shall be transmitted to the person being evaluated and to the department chair.

4.2 / Evaluation of Teaching/Librarianship

Kansas Board of Regents policy statements of April 1992 and December 1994 mandate that there be a formal evaluation of teaching as part of the annual merit salary review.  In compliance with these policy statements, the University has developed the following steps in the evaluation of all University faculty with half-time or more appointments and those unclassified professionals who have teaching responsibilities amounting to 50 percent or more of their workload.

1. Each department shall develop an explicit statement of the appropriate information to be used for teaching evaluation in that department and an explicit statement of the criteria used for the evaluation of that information.
2. Multiple sources or kinds of information shall be used.  Examples are cited in Regents policy statements and in the Faculty Evaluation Committee report to the Faculty Senate (5/95).
3. Student survey results must be included in the information sought.
4. The information presented must be evaluated by peers or knowledgeable colleagues.
5. To protect the broad faculty prerogatives explicit in Regents policy, department faculty shall act immediately to implement those policies.  Accordingly, these faculty shall:
    
   1. Determine the kinds of information appropriate for their disciplines or for the various subdisciplines represented in their department.
   2. Describe the peer evaluation process with respect to the requisite information.  Determine the appropriate criteria which are used to judge the information.
   3. Determine the appropriate criteria which are used to judge the information.
   4. Write a departmental policy statement incorporating items a. through c. above.
   5. Ensure that the unit operates in accord with its own policy.

Portions of Kansas Board of Regents policy statements have direct implications for faculty action and should be consulted for additional reference and guidance.  (Faculty Performance Evaluation, 4/92 and Policy on Teaching Evaluation, 12/94, Kansas Board of Regents).

Since all faculty with half-time or more appointments and those unclassified professionals who have teaching responsibilities amounting to 50 percent or more of their workload must be rated by students at least once a year, the department faculty shall determine the form or forms appropriate to its discipline among those which conform to the criteria stated in the policies of the Board of Regents (Policy on Teaching Evaluation, Board of Regents, 12/94).  Surveys intended for faculty evaluation must conform to certain administrative practices:

1. Persons being evaluated do not have access to blank survey forms and they have no responsibilities to administer the survey nor to tally survey results.
2. Personnel who distribute and collect the surveys will acknowledge by their signature that they conducted the survey for a particular class and they recorded the number of students present at the time the survey was taken.
3. Persons being evaluated shall have access to a copy of raw scores of any survey used for evaluation.

Note: The Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs and Research will establish procedures in consultation with the Faculty Senate for implementation of this policy.  These procedures will pertain only to the time and form of the evaluation policy.

Chronic Low Performance

Each University department/unit shall develop, with input from its faculty, a set of guidelines approved by the dean, describing the minimum acceptable level of performance for all applicable areas of responsibility for its faculty, as well as procedures to handle alleged cases of chronic low performance.  Chronic failure of a tenured faculty member to meet the minimum acceptable level of performance as defined by the department/unit guidelines shall constitute evidence of “chronic low performance” and may warrant consideration for “dismissal for cause” under existing University policies.  This statement is intended to establish a specific and clear procedure for identifying and addressing instances of a faculty member failing to meet the minimum level of performance, and to provide a remediation program where appropriate, as further described below.

If the chair and/or the Faculty Activity Report Review Committee determine that the overall performance of a faculty member in their department falls below the minimum level of performance, this finding shall be indicated in the annual evaluation form.  The chair shall discuss with the faculty member a suggested course of action to improve performance and document that discussion.

If during any four-year period a faculty member receives a second annual evaluation which reflects a finding in that department/unit that he or she has failed to meet the minimum level of performance, the chair shall meet with the faculty member and discuss his or her performance and types of remediation that are available and appropriate.  If the faculty member requests a review of that determination, three tenured faculty members from outside that department/unit but within the same college shall review the faculty member’s annual evaluations and other relevant documents.  The faculty member and the chair shall each select one reviewer, and they shall jointly select the third person.  The reviewers shall submit a written report to the faculty member, the chair, and the dean stating that by majority vote they have verified that departmental guidelines were followed and concluded either that (a) there is evidence of chronic low performance and that remediation is necessary; or (b) there is not evidence of chronic low performance.  The dean will then make the final decisions regarding chronic low performance after meeting with the faculty member and the chair.
 

If remediation is necessary, the chair will discuss the faculty member’s performance with the faculty member and suggest types of remediation that are available and appropriate.  The remediation may include appropriate provisions for faculty development, such as counseling, leave of absence, or a change in teaching assignments.  Other remediation steps may be offered, subject to review by the Faculty Affairs Committee of the Faculty Senate and the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs and Research.  Remediation should begin as soon as possible and will be funded by the University.  The faculty member’s annual review document for the subsequent year should reflect the method of remediation and document its level of success.
 

If within any period of five years from the first evaluation of low performance, a tenured faculty member receives a third annual evaluation which reflects a failure to meet the minimum level of performance, the chair, in conjunction with the dean, may recommend to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs and Research that the Dismissal for Cause Policy under Section 4.23 of the WSU Policies and Procedures Manual be invoked.
 

4.3 / Dismissal for Cause Policy
WSU Policies & Procedures --  http://webs.wichita.edu/inaudit/ch4_23.htm

Preamble:
The President and representatives of the Faculty Senate have worked to revise University policies relative to Dismissal For Cause, particularly with regard to the Informal Review Committee.

Policy Statement:
When reason arises to question the professional fitness of a faculty member who has tenure at Wichita State University or whose term of appointment has not expired, the appropriate administrative officers should ordinarily discuss the matter with the faculty member in personal conference.

If mutual consent is not reached on the matter at this point, a committee appointed by the president of the Faculty Senate, at the request of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs and Research,  will be charged to meet with the parties and informally inquiring into the situation to effect an adjustment if possible, and, if not effected, to provide advisory recommendations to the president of the University whether formal proceedings to consider dismissal of the faculty member should be instituted.

Upon the conclusion of its review, the Informal Review Committee should make one of the following recommendations to the faculty member, the VPAAR, and the president of the University:

1. The Informal Review Committee recommends that formal proceedings to consider dismissal of the faculty member should be instituted.
2. The Informal Review Committee concludes that the evidence presented is not sufficient to support the institution of formal proceedings.
3. The Informal Review Committee concludes that the concerns which have been raised, even if proved, do not merit dismissal.

The rationale for the recommendation should be included with the recommendation.

After reviewing the recommendation of the Informal Review Committee, the president of the University will determine whether the case for dismissal should proceed.  If the decision is to proceed, a communication from the VPAAR addressed to the faculty member will inform him/her of the decision to dismiss him/her for cause.  The faculty member should also be informed that if he/she so requests within 10 days, a formal hearing to determine whether he/she should be removed from his/her faculty position on the grounds stated will be conducted by a faculty committee at a specified time and place.  In setting the date of the hearing, at least 20 days should be allowed the faculty member to prepare a defense. The faculty member should be informed, in detail or by reference to published regulations, of the procedural rights that will be accorded.  Not less than one week before the date set for the hearing, the faculty member should reply in writing whether he/she wishes a hearing.  If the formal hearing is held the recommendations of the Informal Review Committee will be included in the materials presented to the hearing committee.

Only charges considered by the Informal review Committee may be considered as grounds for dismissal.  The VPAAR may add to or amend charges by reconvening the Informal review Committee.

The committee of faculty members to conduct the hearing and make a final recommendation to the University president should be jointly named by the president of the Faculty Senate and the University president as soon as possible after the faculty member requests a formal hearing.  The members of the hearing committee should be chosen on the basis of their objectivity and competence and the regard in which they are held in the academic community.  Parties to the hearing may offer challenges for cause to those named to the committee, and those challenged will be replaced if either appointing official finds there is sufficient cause to do so.  The committee should elect its own chairperson.  The published regulations applicable to the conduct of the formal committee's inquiry and to the rights of the faculty member are in the Kansas Board of Regents, Policy and Procedures Manual (1995 edition) item 8(4) on page 7F and are repeated as follows: "the accused teacher shall be informed before the hearing in writing of the charges against him and shall have the opportunity to be heard in his own defense by all bodies that pass judgment upon his case.  He may have with him an adviser of his own choosing who may act as counsel.  There shall be a full stenographic record of the hearing available to the parties concerned.  In the hearing of charges of incompetence, the testimony should include that of teachers and other scholars, either from his own or from other institutions."  The hearing committee should give opportunity to the faculty member or his/her counsel and the representative designated by the VPAAR to argue orally before it, and should formulate its recommendation in conference, on the basis of the hearing.  The hearing committee should make explicit findings with respect to each of the grounds of removal presented.  The faculty member should be notified of the committee's recommendation in writing and should be given a copy of the record of the hearing.

The University president will receive and consider the hearing committee's recommendations.  If the decision is to dismiss the faculty member, the University president will so inform the faculty member in writing, stating the grounds for dismissal, and indicating the effective date of the end of the faculty member's employment and any specific arrangements to be made regarding separation salary or other relevant matters.

Implementation:
This policy shall be included in the WSU Policies and Procedures Manual and shared with appropriate constituencies of the University.

The Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs and Research shall have primary responsibility for publication, dissemination and implementation of this University policy.

Revision Date:
November 1, 1998
August 18, 2000

l.