I. Introduction
II. Student Opinion of Instruction (SOI)
III. Annual Faculty Activity Report and Action Plan (AFARAP)
IV. Annual Faculty Evaluation (AFE)
V. Merit Pay
VI. Promotion and Tenure Review
VII. Pre-Tenure / Third-year Review
VIII. Post-Tenure / Fifth-year Review
IX. Performance Remediation Plans and Performance Improvement Plans
X. Approval
XI. Appendix

I. Introduction

Valdosta State University helps faculty members develop successful, productive careers by regularly evaluating their performance, providing constructive feedback, and facilitating their professional growth. Consisting of a structured, flexible process of continuous planning, communication, and feedback, faculty evaluation begins at the point of initial employment, it guides the promotion and tenure process, and it informs the years of post-tenure service.

Faculty members are evaluated in three areas: (a) teaching and student learning; (b) research, scholarship, professional growth, and creative production; and (c) service to the university, community, or profession including how engagement in student success activities is embedded in these three areas.

Several principles shape this evaluation model1:

Transparency. VSU’s Faculty Evaluation Model provides a conduit for early and consistent communication between department/unit heads and faculty members about university expectations, faculty goals, and departmental needs;
Intentionality. It emphasizes the value of annual, faculty-developed action plans that are devised in consultation with department/unit heads and designed to meet the long-term goals of individual faculty members as well as of the units in which they serve.
Flexibility. It recognizes and rewards the shifting emphases in professional activity that may occur during an academic year as well as over the course of individual faculty members’ careers.
Breadth of Perspective. It yields feedback from diverse perspectives, including students, department/unit heads, and departmental, college, and university peers.
Ease of Access. It employs an online system, which provides a consistent format, automatically populates some data, and organizes reports in various formats, as needed.
Academic Freedom. All of these evaluations should be conducted in a manner consistent with VSU’s support of Academic Freedom as defined in VSU’s Faculty Handbook.

 

[1] “Model” indicates that colleges and units will modify elements of the evaluative procedure (e.g., arrangement of professional categories or addition of questions to the SOI, etc.) to facilitate planning, program evaluation by external accrediting bodies, or other disciplinary requirements.

VSU’s evaluation model employs the following assessment activities:

Review Reviewers Frequency Location
Student Opinion of Instruction

Students voluntarily provide feedback on faculty members’ teaching effectiveness.

 Each term Smart Evals SOI portal
Annual Faculty Activity Report and Action Plan Faculty members report on their activities for the past year, reflect on their accomplishments, and set goals for the upcoming year. Annual Faculty Activity Tracking System
Annual Faculty Evaluation Department/unit heads use faculty members’ Action Plans and Annual Faculty Activity Reports to evaluate their performance during the past year and work with faculty members to implement Performance Remediation Plans (PRPs) if needed Annual Faculty Activity Tracking System
Merit Pay Review Department/unit heads use individual department/college standards to reward faculty members’ performance since the last award of merit pay. Periodic, depending upon legislative appropriations Department/ College Policy Manual
Promotion and Tenure Review Department committees and department/unit heads; college committees and deans; and university committee and Provost evaluate faculty members’ performance in teaching and student learning; scholarship and creative productivity; and service to the university, community, and profession, including how engagement in student success activities is embedded in these three areas. Tenure and first promotion review usually between the fourth and seventh year of full-time university service; subsequent promotions not sooner than five years after the last promotion College and University Promotion and Tenure Documents
Pre-tenure / Third-year Review Department committees and department/unit heads evaluate tenure-track faculty members’ progress toward meeting standards for promotion and tenure and non-tenure track faculty members’ success in meeting departmental and unit standards. Generally, during the third year of service, unless the faculty members brings years toward tenure College Promotion and Tenure Documents

Post-tenure / Fifth-year Review

Department personnel committee evaluates faculty members' professional activity since the last review. Department/unit heads implement Performance Improvement Plans (PIPs), if needed. College personnel committees will act as the first level of appeal, if needed.

Every five years unless interrupted by another personnel action

University Policy
Corrective Post-tenure/Fifth-year Review The department will conduct a corrective post-tenure/fifth-year review if a faculty member receives two consecutive annual evaluations with one or more areas rated as “Needs Improvement” or “Does Not Meet Expectations.” As triggered by annual evaluations University Policy

Performance Remediation Plan (PRP)

 Department Head will work with faculty member on a PRP after an annual evaluation with one or more areas rated “Needs Improvement” or “Does Not Meet Expectations.” As triggered by annual evaluations University Policy

Performance Improvement Plan (PIP)

 Department Head will work with faculty member on a PIP after an unsuccessful corrective or regular post-tenure/fifth-year review. As triggered by post-tenure/fifth-year review University Policy

Section I Revisions

Approved by the Faculty Senate March 25, 2021. Revisions approved by the Faculty Senate April 21, 2022.

II. Student Opinion of Instruction (SOI)

As per BOR Policy Manual 8.3.5.1, each institution, as part of its evaluative procedures, will utilize a written system of faculty evaluations by students, with the improvement of teaching effectiveness as the main focus of these student evaluations.

SOIs through SmartEvals are provided for each course,2 including summer sessions.

SOIs include open-ended and closed-ended questions about faculty performance. These are available soon after the end of the semester and are stored electronically. Information from them is used in Annual Evaluations and Promotion and Tenure documents.

Guidelines for interpreting Student Opinions of Instruction are available online through the Office of Academic Affairs.

[2] Exceptions include thesis sections, dissertation sections, zero credit hour courses, other courses with low enrollments (<3) where the student’s anonymity could be compromised.

Section II Revisions

Approved by the Faculty Senate March 25, 2021.

Section II Resources

III. Annual Faculty Activity Report and Action Plan (AFARAP)

Each University System of Georgia (USG) institution shall establish definite and stated criteria, consistent with Board of Regents’ policies and the statutes of the institution, against which the performance of each faculty member will be evaluated. The evaluation shall occur at least annually (BOR Policy Manual 8.3.5.1).

Valdosta State University combines an action plan with the self-reporting of annual activities required for this USG-mandated annual evaluation. The resulting document, the Annual Faculty Activity Report and Action Plan (AFARAP), performs a variety of important functions:

  • it engages faculty members in a structured process of reflection, self-evaluation, and personal career planning;
  • it allows department and unit heads to assess faculty members’ progress toward their next personnel action or merit determination and to help faculty reach departmental expectations and goals; and
  • it provides documentation for future personnel actions as well as for strategic planning and development at the department, college, and university level.

The Annual Faculty Activity Report and Action Plan fulfills three distinct but closely related purposes:

  • First, it clearly and accurately details faculty members’ specific activities and accomplishments in the areas of (a) Teaching and Student Learning, (b) Research, Scholarship, Professional Growth, and Creative Production, and (c) Service to the University, Community, or Profession, including how engagement in student success activities was embedded in these three areas during the past year. This information is stored electronically and may be entered at the faculty member’s convenience. 
  • Second, it allows faculty members to reflect upon their professional accomplishments and growth during the past year as well as to identify perceived needs and new professional interests they have developed during the year. Faculty members must refer specifically to SOI reports from the past year as part of their reflection upon their teaching and instruction. They should also comment upon their progress toward meeting the action plan they outlined for the year under review. If new assignments or responsibilities interrupted the pursuit of these plans, the reflective comments should explain.
  • Third, it identifies specific tasks that faculty members intend to pursue in the coming year. Since these plans help define the standards used to evaluate the faculty member’s performance in the coming year, they should be phrased in actionable and not merely aspirational terms: e.g. “to prepare and submit at least one conference paper” or “to revise and resubmit an article to XYZ journal,” or “to finish editing a book under contract,” rather than “to become a recognized scholar in XYZ studies.”

Faculty members are responsible for uploading a syllabus for each course and teaching qualifications each semester. They can update their scholarly activities and additional professional experiences at any time. Instruction on accessing the database, using it, and printing reports; information required for the AFARAP; and timelines for submitting and reviewing this document are available online through the Office of Academic Affairs.

Department/unit heads are responsible for meeting with new faculty members during their first semester of employment to discuss the Faculty Evaluation Model, to clarify departmental expectations, and to set appropriate action plans for the coming year.

Copies and supporting documentation are housed in the employee’s official personnel file. Department/unit heads respond to each Annual Faculty Activity Report and Action Plan through the Annual Faculty Evaluation form.

Section III Revisions

Approved by the Faculty Senate March 25, 2021. Revisions approved by the Faculty Senate April 21, 2022. 

Section III Resources

IV. Annual Faculty Evaluation (AFE)

Conducted by department/unit heads, the Annual Faculty Evaluation provides faculty members with a qualitative and quantitative evaluation of their past year’s performance in teaching and student learning; research, scholarship, professional growth, and creative production; and university, community, or professional service, as well as how engagement in these activities may support student success.  

The following principles inform this document:

  • it uses written departmental or college standards, aligned with the University Annual Faculty Evaluation Form, as the basis for evaluation. Evaluation rubrics for all colleges/departments should be available to all faculty members. According to the USG Academic Affairs Handbook, for “Effectiveness in Academic Assigned Duties”, these standards should include measures such as an assessment of student perception (SOIs), evidence of effective student learning, the use of continuous improvement methodologies, peer assessment of pedagogy, an evaluation of curricular design, quality of assessment and course construction, and the use of established learning science methodologies.” Each department/unit will review and maintain its statement of expectations for each performance level applicable to all faculty members (tenured and non-tenured) every five years. Departmental/unit statements will address expectations for the areas of teaching and student learning (or alternative expectations if the faculty member’s primary responsibility is not teaching); research, scholarship, professional growth, and creative production; and service to the university, community, or profession. These must be as specific as possible, without precluding the diverse contributions that individual faculty members might make to the university community and in consideration of VSU’s Faculty Workload Policy
  • engagement in activities contributing to student success should be stressed in all areas of evaluation, and it is incumbent on faculty members to explain how activities in these areas contribute to student success as defined by their departments and colleges while recognizing that individual differences in teaching, scholarship, and service are valued. According to the USG Academic Affairs Handbook, “evaluation of the Student Success component will involve an assessment the faculty member’s activities inside and outside of the classroom that deepen student learning and engagement for all learners. These aspects may include effective advising and mentoring; undergraduate and graduate research; other forms of experiential learning; engagement in other high impact practices; the development of student success tools and curricular materials: strategies to improve student career success; and involvement in faculty development activities. For scholarship, evaluation of engagement in student success activities will take place within the context and mission of the faculty member’s department. For service, several forms of active engagement could be considered including committee work; faculty senate activities; major system/institution initiatives; discipline-related service in local, regional, national, and international organizations; and community involvement.”
  • it employs a five-point scale: “Exemplary (5),” “Exceeds Expectations (4),” “Meets Expectations (3),” “Needs Improvement (2),” or “Does Not Meet Expectations (1)”
  • it includes written comments that explain and/or document the basis for the rating given in each category;
  • it offers a personalized Performance Remediation Plan (PRP) if activity in any area or overall is rated as “needs improvement” or “does not meet expectations” specifically tailored to assist faculty in improving the outcome at their next annual evaluation (described in Section IX)
  • It offers the possibility of a corrective post-tenure review (for tenured faculty) or corrective review (for long-term non-tenured faculty) after two successive annual evaluations with individual area or overall ratings of “Needs Improvement” or “Does Not Meet Expectations”
  • it documents faculty members’ progress in meeting Performance Remediation Plans (PRPs) or Performance Improvement Plans (PIPs)

Process

During the Annual Faculty Evaluation process, department/unit heads meet with faculty members (a) to review the past year’s activities, (b) to assure that faculty members’ goals and plans for the upcoming year are aligned with departmental, college, and university goals, and (c) to determine that they are prioritized in a way that may lead to tenure and promotion where appropriate. 

Both the faculty member and the department/unit head sign the Annual Faculty Evaluation to certify that they have met and discussed this document.  Faculty members have the right to append a response within 10 working days to this evaluation before it leaves the department. Within 10 working days of receiving the faculty member’s response, the department/unit head will acknowledge the receipt of this response in writing, noting changes, if any, in the annual written evaluation made as a result of either the conference or the faculty member’s written response. This acknowledgement will also become a part of the record. Annual evaluations are not subject to discretionary review. Copies of the Annual Evaluation document will be forwarded to the appropriate dean and then to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs. A copy of this evaluation form as well as the schedule for the departmental and college review of this document appears online through the Office of Academic Affairs.

Section IV Revisions

Approved by the Faculty Senate March 25, 2021. Revisions approved by the Faculty Senate April 21, 2022. 

Section IV Resources

V. Merit Pay

Institutions in the University System of Georgia are authorized to offer performance-based salary increases as often as once per year. However, both the availability and the amount of increase depend on the appropriation of money for this purpose by the Georgia General Assembly.

When funding is available, salary increases are awarded on the basis of merit. Criteria for determining merit may include teaching and job performance; completion of significant professional development activities, including the attainment of additional academic degrees; promotion in rank; seniority; research productivity; academic achievements and publications; academic honors and recognitions; relevant professional achievements and recognitions; and non-teaching services to the institution.

Individual colleges and departments are responsible for developing standards of evaluation for use within their respective units and for working with the Office of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs to ensure that these standards comply with university policies.

Department/unit heads and deans are responsible for communicating these standards to all members of their unit, and faculty are encouraged to be familiar with and adhere to these established standards.

Section V Revisions

Approved by the Faculty Senate March 25, 2021.

Section V Resources

VI. Promotion and Tenure Review

General guidelines for promotion and tenure within the University System of Georgia appear in its Board of Regents’ Academic Affairs and Student Affairs Handbook (Tenure 4.4, Promotion 4.5) as well as in three sections of its Board of Regents’ Policy Manual: 8.3.5.1 (Evaluation of Faculty), 8.3.6 (Criteria for Promotion), and 8.3.7 (Tenure and Criteria for Tenure). Tenure is reserved for faculty members in tenure-track positions. Tenure is not guaranteed. Normally, faculty members must be employed in a tenure-track position for at least four years of full-time consecutive service before they are eligible to apply for tenure.

Faculty with non-tenure track appointments and honorific appointments, including adjunct appointments, are not eligible for tenure (BOR Policy Manual 8.3.8). Depending on their academic rank, individuals employed in non-tenure track positions may be eligible for promotion (BOR Policy Manual 8.3.8.3 Senior Lecturers and Principal Lecturers).

Individuals employed in non-tenure track positions may apply on an equal basis with other candidates for tenure track positions that become available (BOR Policy Manual 8.3.8 Non-Tenure Track Personnel).

VSU’s general policies and procedures for promotion and for awarding tenure as well as the guidelines used in its various units, including its colleges and Odum Library, are available online through the Office of Academic Affairs.

The timeline for submitting promotion and tenure materials appears in the resources below.

Section VI Revisions

Approved by the Faculty Senate March 25, 2021.

Section VI Resources

VII. Pre-Tenure / Third-year Review

According to BOR Policy Manual 8.3.5.1, “Each University System of Georgia (USG) institution shall conduct in-depth pre-tenure reviews of all faculty in their third year of progress toward tenure with a focus on the criteria established for promotion and tenure, emphasizing excellence in teaching. The institution shall develop pre-tenure review policies, as well as any subsequent revisions.”

Pre-tenure review is advisory. Its purpose is to highlight probationary faculty members’ strengths and potential weaknesses at least two years before probationary faculty members submit applications for promotion and tenure. 

Pre-tenure review typically occurs during faculty members’ third year of employment in a tenure-track position at the assistant professor level or higher. However, faculty members who bring prior years of service will receive a pre-tenure review at the mid-point of the remaining probationary period.

Keeping in mind the University System’s emphasis upon superior teaching/job performance, pre-tenure review carefully assesses faculty members’ instructional competence. It also evaluates their progress toward meeting departmental, college, and institutional standards for research, scholarship, and creative production and assesses their service to the institution, community, and/or profession.

When undergoing pre-tenure review, faculty members should complete the Application for Promotion and Tenure form currently used by their unit. Pre-tenure dossiers must be submitted by the date specified for their unit.  Copies of these forms and the Personnel Action Cover Sheet, a list of materials required in the dossier, and timelines for submitting dossiers for each unit are available in Valdosta State University Tenure and Promotion Policies and Procedures.

Faculty members in non-tenure track positions will also undergo review in their third year of service. This review is tailored to their specific duties and is designed to assure that non-tenure track faculty members are successfully meeting departmental standards for performing these duties. If a non-tenure track position can lead to promotion, then this review will serve as a pre-promotion review and will follow the process outlined below.

Departmental personnel committees evaluate candidates’ pre-tenure, pre-promotion, and third-year review dossiers in light of their respective unit guidelines. Following that analysis, committees prepare a written report identifying areas of strength, noting areas where additional attention is warranted, and making recommendations.  These reports are submitted both to department/unit heads and to candidates. Department/unit heads independently evaluate pre-tenure dossiers, review advisory committees’ recommendations, and submit reports and recommendations to the dean. Deans review material prepared by committees and department/unit heads, meet with faculty members if a meeting is desired, and provide a letter of notification to the faculty member and to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs.

Section VII Revisions

Approved by the Faculty Senate March 25, 2021.

Section VII Resources

VIII. Post-Tenure / Fifth-year Review

Overview

All full-time faculty members have regular annual evaluations. Tenured faculty members have post-tenure review every five years after earning tenure (unless interrupted by a further review for promotion to a higher academic rank or an academic leadership promotion), and non-tenured faculty members have fifth-year reviews every five years after their initial six years (unless another personnel action, such as promotion, intervenes). Both review processes encourage faculty to continue to be motivated and professionally active by assessing faculty goals and achievements and monitoring continuous intellectual and professional growth over a longer term. The post-tenure and fifth year reviews offer faculty an opportunity for career reflection on evolving professional interests, responsibilities, and roles in the university, while facilitating alignment of faculty contributions with the VSU mission.

Post-Tenure Review

According to BOR Policy Manual 8.3.5.4, updated August 3, 2023: “The post-tenure review process shall support the further career development of tenured faculty members as well as ensure accountability and continued strong performance from faculty members after they achieved tenure.” With the exception of tenured administrators the majority of whose duties are administrative (and have a separate administrative review process), all tenured faculty will be reviewed. Each faculty member must be assessed five years after the most recent promotion or personnel action, and reviews will continue at five-year intervals unless interrupted by a further review for promotion to a higher academic rank or to academic leadership, an approved leave of absence or a corrective post-tenure review (after two successive annual evaluations with overall or individual section ratings of “Needs Improvement” or “Does Not Meet Expectations”). Tenured faculty who leave administrative positions will have a post-tenure review five years after returning to a full-time teaching appointment. The Annual Faculty Evaluation (AFE) cover sheet, completed by the Department/Unit Head, will inform the faculty member of the next scheduled personnel action, e.g. post-tenure review, and the anticipated date of this action.

A tenured faculty member may voluntarily elect to go up for a post-tenure review before the five-year time limit in order to take full advantage of the feedback and insight provided by their colleagues at a strategic point in their career.  If the faculty member has a successful review, the next scheduled review will be five years from the date of the voluntary review.  If the faculty member is unsuccessful, the regular date remains in place.

The review should focus on the faculty member’s accomplishments, in the areas of teaching and student learning; research, scholarship, professional growth, and creative production; and service to the university, community, or profession, as well as emphasize the faculty member’s engagement in activities contributing to student success in each of these areas.

The results of successful post-tenure reviews should be linked to rewards and professional development. Faculty members who are performing at a high level should receive recognition for their achievements. In the case of a non-successful post-tenure review, faculty members will be assigned a performance improvement plan.

Process

Since tenured faculty members continue to participate in the thorough annual evaluation process required of all VSU faculty members, post-tenure review should require less documentation than promotion and tenure review.

In addition to the Personnel Action Cover Sheet, the faculty member should submit the following:

  1. the five most recent annual evaluations,
  2. a current curriculum vita,
  3. a self-assessment, which should look both backward and forward, including faculty members’ reflections on their evaluations (SOIs, peer evaluations, annual evaluations), their engagement in activities contributing to student success, and their future plans in all areas.
  4. any additional supporting materials the faculty member chooses to submit in support of the application.
These materials will be submitted to department/unit heads by the dates identified by the faculty members’ college.

Departmental Promotion and Tenure committees, or appointed personnel advisory committees, evaluate post-tenure reviews and submit written recommendations to the Department/Unit Head and to the faculty member. The Department/Unit Head will meet with the faculty member to discuss the results of the review as well as prepare an independent written evaluation to share with the faculty member. Both the Department/Unit Head and the faculty member must sign the report indicating the results have been presented and discussed. These letters should be shared as information items with the Dean and Provost and placed in the faculty member’s file in Human Resources. If the review is successful, the faculty member will be scheduled for post-tenure review after five more years of service. If the review is unsuccessful, the faculty member has the right to append a response within 10 working days. Within 10 working days of receiving the faculty member’s response, the department/unit head should also append a response that will be part of the record. The faculty member will then be assigned a Performance Improvement Plan (described in Section IX).

Fifth-Year Review

Faculty members in non-tenure track positions will also undergo review after their sixth year of service and then every five years thereafter, unless interrupted by a further review for promotion, an approved leave of absence, or a corrective review. This review is tailored to their specific duties and is designed to assure that non-tenure track faculty members are successfully meeting departmental standards for performance of these duties. Annual performance ratings in areas of their assigned duties will provide the basis for fifth-year reviews of non-tenure track faculty. These reviews should contain the same documentation as listed in the post-tenure guidelines. Departmental Promotion and Tenure committees, or appointed personnel advisory committees evaluate fifth-year reviews and submit recommendations to the Department/Unit Head. The Department/Unit Head will then prepare a letter to share with the faculty member. Both the Department/Unit Head and the faculty member must sign the report indicating the results have been presented and discussed. These letters should be shared as information items with the Dean and Provost and placed in the faculty member’s file in Human Resources.

If the review is successful, the faculty member will be scheduled for another review after five more years of service.  If the review is unsuccessful, the faculty member will be assigned a Performance Improvement Plan (described in Section IX).

Section VIII Revisions

Approved by the Faculty Senate March 25, 2021. Revisions approved by the Faculty Senate April 21, 2022. Revisions approved by Faculty Senate January 18, 2024 and by President Carvajal February 2, 2024.

Section VIII Resources

IX. Performance Remediation Plans and Performance Improvement Plans

The goal of every faculty evaluation assessment is to support continuous growth and improvement with the aim of helping faculty members achieve success. In the event that faculty members struggle with some aspects of the evaluation process, processes are in place to assist faculty members in getting back on track.

The following measure is in place for all full-time faculty (tenured, tenure-track, and non-tenured) as part of their annual evaluations:

Performance Remediation Plan (PRP): Faculty members who receive a rating of “Needs Improvement” or “Does Not Meet Expectations” overall or in any part of the annual evaluation, will work with their Department/Unit Heads to develop a personalized Performance Remediation Plan (PRP). The purpose of this plan is to scaffold faculty growth and development and strengthen the opportunities for the faculty member’s success at the next annual evaluation.

The PRP should include the following:

  1. clearly defined goals or outcomes,
  2. an outline of activities to be undertaken,
  3. a timetable,
  4. available resources and supports,
  5. expectations for improvement,
  6. a monitoring strategy.

The plan must be approved by the Dean and submitted to Human Resources where permanent faculty files are housed. The department head and faculty member should meet twice in the spring as the plan starts and twice during the following fall, according to the specified timeline, to review progress, document additional needs/resources, and note planned accomplishments. After each meeting, the Department/Unit Head should summarize the meeting and indicate if the faculty member is on track to complete the PRP. Consequences for the failure to meet the expectations of the PRP must be stated at the conclusion of each meeting. Results will be assessed at the next year’s annual evaluation. If the rating continues the same, overall or in any part of the annual evaluation, faculty members, depending on their tenure status, will encounter the following:

  • Tenure-track faculty: If tenure-track faculty members do not meet the expectations of the remediation plan, they may be subject to receiving a written notice of intent not to renew according to the schedule posted in the BOR Policy Manual 8.3.4.2.
  • Non-tenured faculty with six or fewer years of service: If faculty in these positions do not meet the expectations of the remediation plan, they may be subject to receiving notification of non-reappointment according to the schedule posted in the BOR Policy Manual 8.3.4.3.
  • Tenured faculty members: If tenured faculty members do not meet the expectations of the remediation plan, they will be assigned a corrective post-tenure review. According to BOR Policy 8.3.5.4: “That review will not alter the timing of the faculty member’s regularly scheduled five-year post-tenure review thereafter.”
  • Non-tenured faculty with more than six years of service: If non-tenured faculty members do not meet the expectations of the remediation plan, they will be assigned a corrective review. That review will not alter the timing of the faculty member’s regularly scheduled five-year review thereafter.

The next measure is in place for full-time tenured or non-tenured faculty members who have an unsuccessful post-tenure or corrective post-tenure review or fifth-year review or corrective review:

Performance Improvement Plan (PIP): “If the results of the post-tenure review (or a fifth-year review for non-tenured faculty) are unfavorable, then a performance improvement plan shall be created by the applicable Department Chair and Dean in consultation with the faculty member” (BOR Policy 8.3.5.4). The departmental promotion and tenure committee or appointed personnel committee should also be consulted in the development of this plan.

If the Department/Unit Head recommends a performance improvement plan, it must include the following

  1. clearly defined goals or outcomes,
  2. an outline of activities to be undertaken,
  3. a timetable,
  4. available resources and supports,
  5. expectations for improvement,
  6. a monitoring strategy.

The plan must be approved by the Dean and submitted to Human Resources where permanent faculty files are housed. Two meetings during the fall and the spring must be held to review progress, document additional needs/resources, and note planned accomplishments. After each meeting, the Department/Unit Head should summarize the meeting and indicate if the faculty member is on track to complete the PIP. Consequences for the failure to meet the expectations of the PIP must be stated at the conclusion of each meeting. Results will be assessed at the next year’s annual evaluation. 

Faculty members who successfully complete the performance improvement plan as determined by the department/unit head (and with the concurrence of the dean) will resume the regular five-year post-tenure review schedule. 

Faculty members who fail to make sufficient progress or who refuse to engage reasonably in the process as determined by the Department/Unit Head will be subject to appropriate remedial action corresponding to the seriousness and nature of the deficiencies noted. Possible remedial actions may include, but are not limited to, reallocation of effort, salary reduction, tenure revocation, and dismissal. The Department/Unit Head and Dean will propose an appropriate remedial action.

The Department/Unit Head will provide the faculty member with a letter documenting the summary of post-tenure/fifth-year review findings; this letter must also include next steps and due process rights. The faculty member can provide a written rebuttal that will be attached to the final document; however, no action is required by the department/unit head.

Appeals

The Department/Unit Head and Dean will recommend an appropriate remedial action. Faculty members may appeal this remedial action within 10 calendar days of receiving the recommendation. Faculty members should address this appeal to the Provost, who will then request that the Faculty Senate appoint an ad hoc Post-Tenure/Fifth- Year Review (PTR) Committee, consisting of 7 senior faculty members representing each of the undergraduate colleges and the library. This PTR Committee will be charged with reviewing the materials associated with the post-tenure/fifth-year review. The faculty member may also request an observer from VSU’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), who will not be part of the committee but can observe on behalf of the faculty member.

Further due process steps will include the following:

  1. Within 20 calendar days of the request for review by the faculty member, the PTR Committee will review the recommendation of the Department/Unit Head and Dean and issue its recommendation. This committee may exercise its judgment as to whether an in-person hearing is necessary.  While the recommendation of the PTR Committee may be based solely on a review of the record, it can also request an in-person meeting including the Dean, Department/Unit Head, and the faculty member.
  2. Within 5 calendar days of receiving the recommendation(s) from the committee, the Provost shall consider the committee’s recommendation and then send an official letter to the faculty member notifying the faculty member of the Provost’s recommendation. The Provost’s remedial action may include, but not be limited to, suspension of pay, salary reduction, revocation of tenure, and separation from employment.
  3. If the remedial action is separation from employment, and only in that case, the faculty member has the right to request a final faculty hearing for the purpose of confirming that due process was followed in reaching the decision of separation of employment. If the faculty member requests a formal hearing within 5 calendar days of receiving the Provost’s official letter, the Provost will grant that request.

    Procedures for the final faculty hearing:

    1. A PTR final dismissal faculty hearing should be formed within 5 calendar days of receiving the faculty member’s request and consist of not fewer than three, but not more than five, impartial faculty members appointed by the executive committee of the Faculty Senate from among the members of the entire faculty of the institution. Members of the hearing committee may serve concurrently on other committees of the faculty. The hearing committee should elect a chair from its membership. The entire process of the hearing and written recommendation from the final hearing committee to the President must be completed within 30 calendar days from the date of the faculty member’s request for a hearing.
    2. The hearing committee will notify the faculty member recommended for dismissal in writing at least 15 calendar days prior to the hearing.
    3. Prior to the hearing, the hearing committee will review all documentation relevant to the post-tenure review of the faculty
    4. During the hearing, the faculty member should have the opportunity to make a statement to the committee, respond to the documentation reviewed by the committee, and answer any questions from the committee. The President and the faculty member shall be notified in writing of the recommendation of the hearing committee within 10 calendar days of the hearing, whether that recommendation be dismissal or any penalty less than dismissal, providing supporting reasons.
  4. The President may or may not follow the recommendation of the committee, but, within 10 calendar days of receiving the recommendation of the hearing committee, must notify the faculty member in writing of the final decision with any supporting as well as the process for discretionary review application as provided for in Board of Regents’ Policy.
  5. If the remedial action taken is dismissal by the President, the faculty member may complete their faculty assignment for the current semester at the discretion of the institution; however, the semester during which a final decision is issued will be the last semester of employment in their current role with the President outlining the faculty assignments to be completed prior to the dismissal date.
  6. An aggrieved faculty member may seek a discretionary review of the institution’s final decision pursuant to Board policy on Applications for Discretionary Review (6.26).

Section IX Revisions

Approved by the Faculty Senate March 25, 2021. Revisions approved by the Faculty Senate April 21, 2022. Revisions approved by Faculty Senate January 18, 2024 and by President Carvajal February 2, 2024.

Section IX Resources

X. Approval

Approved by the Faculty Senate March 25, 2021. Revisions April 21, 2022. This document replaces the Faculty Evaluation Model approved April 19, 2007.

XI. Appendix

Appendix A: Unsuccessful Annual Evaluation Timeline and Schedule

Appendix B: Unsuccessful Post-Tenure Review Timeline and Schedule 

Appendix C: Remediation & Improvement Plan Timeline

Appendix D: Post-Tenure or Fifth-Year Review Flowchart

Appendix E: Annual Evaluation Flowchart for Tenure-Track and Non-Tenure Track Faculty (fewer than 6 years)

Appendix F: Annual Evaluation Flowchart for Tenured and Non-Tenure Track Faculty (> 6 years)