FACULTY EVALUATIONS

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 2015

Reviewed 3/25/19

1. Faculty Evaluation
   
   1. Faculty Evaluation (other than County Extension or Administrative Faculty) - The annual faculty evaluation is conducted through the use of the evaluation form. The evaluator(s) and the faculty being evaluated are to complete the actions and items per instructions outlined in this procedure.
   2.  County Extension Faculty - The annual County Extension faculty performance evaluation is conducted through the use of the appraisal form .
   3.  Faculty Administrators - The evaluation process is conducted per The Administrator Evaluation process
2. IFAS State Level Faculty Evaluation
   
   1. General Comments
      Annual faculty evaluation is required by the State of Florida. The written policy governing the evaluation can be found in the University of Florida's faculty handbook, and  UF Regulations, and related IFAS HR Procedures. The purpose of faculty evaluations are: (1) improvement in performance and (2) personnel decisions. Faculty- administrator relationships and unit productivity can be improved and maintained where both parties understand the short- and long-range goals of the unit. This understanding should be achieved during the faculty member - evaluator(s) conference held annually. For faculty located at Research and Education Centers (REC's), both the Center Director and the Department Chair should meet with the faculty member annually to conduct the evaluation and to discuss directions for the future. Information from the Faculty Accountability System (FAS) and the Faculty Evaluation shall become part of the permanent record of the faculty member maintained in the respective units.
   2. Faculty Evaluation Instructions
      The Faculty Annual Evaluation is completed by the unit administrator(s) using information based on the plan of work and annual report for the calendar year preceding the evaluation. Promotion, tenure, and/or annual salary recommendations must be consistent with the faculty member's evaluation. Faculty who deem their evaluations unfair after discussions with their unit administrator(s) may appeal directly to their respective dean.
      1. The evaluation of a given calendar year's performance is to be completed by March 31 of the following year.
      2. Keep in mind that the purpose is to evaluate the individual using his or her present position description and percent assignment, plan of work from the previous year, and achievement report describing performance during the preceding calendar year.
      3. Be objective. Do not allow the rating to be influenced by personal considerations. Guard against allowing recent or isolated events to influence rating unduly.
      4. In evaluating an individual's achievement, it is necessary to have standards of performance against which the person is rated. Use "Not Applicable" where appropriate. Overall faculty evaluation rating shall be determined by ratings from each area of the faculty member's assignment for the preceding calendar year and an assessment of the faculty member's accomplishment with regard to attendant responsibilities. The level to which each individual meets the performance characteristics in each area should be rated using the following categories.
         
         Exemplary (5) - In addition to meeting the criteria for commendable performance, performance/behavior consistently exceeds standards of professional performance in comparison to other faculty. Makes outstanding contributions to the department, institution, and content field.
         
         Commendable (4) - In addition to meeting the criteria for standard performance, performance/behavior is above standard in several areas.
         
         Standard Professional Performance (3) - Consistently meets standards of professional performance and/or behavior. Makes meaningful contributions to functioning of the department, institution, and content field.
         
         *Improvement Required (2) - Does not consistently meet standards of professional performance and/or behavior. Improvement required.
         
         *Unacceptable (1) - Does not meet minimal standards of professional performance and/or behavior. Performance level is unacceptable when compared to employment requirements.
      5. Written comments should be included for every evaluation and rating. Written comments are REQUIRED for ratings of Unacceptable and/or Improvement Required on any category. The evaluator(s) may choose to attach a summary evaluative letter instead of comments.
      6. For faculty in the sustained performance program, his/her Performance Improvement Plan should be noted in overall evaluation area on the evaluation.
      7. (Optional) If the faculty member chooses, he/she may complete a copy of this evaluation as a "self-evaluation" prior to the conference with the evaluator(s). The self-evaluation does not become part of the official file.
      8.  Copies Needed. (1) The evaluation form is retained in the faculty member's personnel file in the unit. (2) One copy of the entire evaluation and any letter written by the unit administrator should be sent to IFAS Human Resources at PO Box 110281. 

* A rating of either Improvement Required or Unacceptable is by definition "below satisfactory".

Back to Policies and Procedures