University of Arkansas at Little Rock
Policy Name: Annual Review Policy
Policy Number: LR 403.3
Effective Date: January 1, 2023
Revised Dates: January 26, 2022; July 1, 20019; March 29, 2019; September 13, 2011; January 1, 2001
Most Recent Review Date: November 16, 2018 (Faculty Senate)
Section I. Annual Faculty Review
Pursuant to ACA 6-63-104, an annual review of the performance of all full time faculty members shall be made on the basis of assigned duties and according to criteria and procedures required herein.
It is the responsibility of the department chair (or equivalent) to review the performance of adjunct faculty, visiting faculty, and lecturers according to requirements and guidelines established by the voting faculty as provided in the department’s approved governance document.
The annual review of each faculty member shall provide the primary basis for the chairperson’s (or equivalent) recommendations relating to salary, promotion, granting of tenure, successive appointment, reappointment, post-tenure review, and dismissal. Furthermore, this review is to provide guidance and assistance to all faculty in their professional development and academic responsibilities in the areas of teaching, scholarly and creative activity, and service.
A. Procedures for Annual Faculty Evaluation
Detailed criteria and procedures for annual evaluation of faculty shall be recommended by the faculty and chairperson (or equivalent) of each academic unit; these criteria and related procedures must be submitted to the dean or director, the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost and the Faculty Governance Committee, and the Chancellor for approval. All procedures for annual reviews adopted by each unit shall include provision for, and details for implementation of, the following:
1. No later than 30 days after the beginning of the first appointment of each faculty member, the chairperson (or equivalent) shall advise him or her in writing of the criteria, procedures, and instruments currently used to assess performance;
2. No later than September 1 of each year, each faculty member shall be informed in writing by the chairperson (or equivalent) of the review schedule, criteria, procedures, and instruments to be used that year;
3. No later than the end of the second week of classes in the spring semester of each year, each faculty member shall submit to the chairperson (or equivalent) any materials desired to be considered in the annual review;
4. Each academic unit shall establish procedures to provide its faculty the opportunity to participate in the annual review of their peers. Except as set forth in this policy, no particular system of peer review is prescribed. Academic units are encouraged to develop a peer review system that is consistent with the unit’s faculty resources, the particular expertise of the unit’s faculty members, and practices within the discipline.
a. Feedback from the peer review process will be provided to the chairperson (or equivalent) regarding the performance of those reviewed.
b. If an academic unit forms a peer review committee, the following principles govern:
i. Membership eligibility for peer review committees shall be defined by each academic unit. As much as possible, the composition of these committees should represent the diversity of faculty within the unit.
ii. The unit’s approved governance document shall include procedures for developing a pool of eligible faculty if a committee from within the unit cannot be formed.
5. Each academic unit shall establish procedures for student evaluation of teaching. The purpose of student evaluation of teaching is to provide students with a voice in curriculum development and implementation.
a. Student evaluations of teaching may not be the sole basis for evaluation of teaching.
b. The items included in the instrument administered to students to evaluate teaching must be approved by the department, college, or university faculty.
c. The data resulting from a faculty member’s student evaluation of teaching must be made available to that faculty member in a timely manner and are confidential. These data may only be made available to those involved in performance evaluation (faculty member, chairperson (or equivalent), peer evaluation committee, promotion and tenure committee).
6. Prior to the chairperson’s (or equivalent) making a recommendation in any year, the following shall occur:
a. A meeting between the chairperson (or equivalent) and faculty member to discuss all issues relating to the review,
b. The providing to that faculty member a copy of the chairperson’s (or equivalent) tentative recommendation(s), and
c. The faculty member may submit a written response to be forwarded to each subsequent
level of review within thirty (30) days of the meeting in 6.b.
d. If the faculty member receives an unsatisfactory rating in any category (teaching, scholarly and creative activity, or service), the chairperson (or equivalent) shall provide a written recommendation for improvement and, when appropriate, a commitment of resources to be part of the subsequent year’s annual evaluation.
e. The faculty member and chairperson (or equivalent) shall acknowledge that this meeting has transpired by signature.
f. If the faculty member believes that an evaluation or recommendation resulting from annual review violates their rights under established university policy, they may submit a written appeal to the dean. This written appeal may request consideration of the evaluation by the dean, based on specific, articulated concerns. The dean shall make the determination on the annual review. This determination should be informed by the department’s approved criteria.
7. As long as a faculty member is employed by the University and for at least three years thereafter, the following documents shall be maintained: annual review forms, summaries of annual discussion between the chairperson (or equivalent) and faculty member, recommendations, and all other writings used in or resulting from the annual reviews of that faculty member;
8. The following documents shall be available to each faculty member: all writings used in or resulting from the annual reviews of that faculty member including any writings relating to the peer evaluation.
9. Each academic unit shall establish minimum criteria for satisfactory performance in each category (teaching, scholarly and creative activity, and service). If an academic unit does not have approved criteria, the criteria defined in the generic department governance document shall be used.
10. The chairperson (or equivalent) shall provide at a minimum a rating of satisfactory/unsatisfactory on teaching, scholarly and creative activity, and service. The chairperson (or equivalent) shall consider the annual review committee’s evaluation when assessing annual performance.
11. Overall Unsatisfactory Rating for a Tenured Faculty Member and Post-tenure Review
a. “Overall unsatisfactory performance” occurs when a faculty member’s annual performance is evaluated as unsatisfactory in two out of three categories of teaching, scholarship and creative works, and service according to the academic unit’s criteria (section I. A.9). Before making a determination of overall unsatisfactory, the chairperson (or equivalent) must take into consideration the faculty member’s assigned workload and evidence of relevant, documented efforts and outcomes within the context of that workload.
b. If there is a determination of overall unsatisfactory performance, then post-tenure review (section II) will be initiated.
c. If the faculty member is not rated overall unsatisfactory, then the faculty member is overall satisfactory.
B.Criteria for Faculty Evaluation
Each faculty member shall render service to the University by the standards of the University Faculty Handbook and shall behave in a professional and ethical manner. Each faculty member shall be evaluated based on his or her achievements with respect to assigned duties and the areas of teaching (or professional performance for faculty members with non-teaching appointments), scholarly or creative activity, and academically-related service.
The programmatic learning outcomes data collected from an individual faculty member shall not be used in annual reviews for that person.
Evidence, qualifying activities, and artifacts to be used in evaluating teaching, scholarly or creative activity, and service are defined in the Promotion and Tenure policy (LR 403.15).
Section II. Post-Tenure Review
Post-tenure review is a mechanism to ensure that the university can maintain a faculty capable of fulfilling the university’s mission effectively. It should encourage productivity, reward exceptional performance, and offer correction of unsatisfactory performance without changing the rights of faculty as enumerated in the current UA Little Rock Faculty Handbook.
Annual review is conducted for all faculty. Criteria, standards and procedures are specified in policies set forth by the trustees, UALR administration, faculty senate, and academic units. The reviews, as provided for in section I of this policy, are used for determining salary increases, promotion, tenure, and assisting faculty in professional development. Faculty also have appeal processes as outlined in UA Little Rock policies and UA Board policies.
Annual reviews for tenured faculty will be used for post-tenure review. Academic units will define criteria for overall unsatisfactory performance for tenured faculty. If the faculty member is determined to be overall unsatisfactory (see section I. A. 11), the departmental group charged with peer review, the chair (or equivalent) and the dean shall prepare a professional development plan supported by appropriate resources. The plan must be developed within 30 days of the final overall evaluation of overall unsatisfactory and must contain measurable objective benchmarks identifying what is necessary to attain meaningful progress and, separately, satisfactory performance. During the time period of the professional development plan, progress toward successful completion of the plan will become part of the annual review process for the faculty member.
If the faculty member receives one additional overall unsatisfactory reviews (see section I. A. 11) during the professional development plan period, and fails to demonstrate meaningful progress in remediating overall performance deficiencies, the department chairperson (or equivalent) informed by the recommendation of the departmental group charged with peer review, and the dean, may initiate the process for terminating with cause the tenured faculty member as specified in UA Little Rock policies and UA Board policies.
 Solely by way of illustration, a unit might choose to create a separate peer review committee. Alternatively, a unit might allocate the peer review process to the unit’s promotion and tenure committee. A unit might also decide to have all full-time faculty participate in the peer review process for members of that unit.
 This feedback may take the form of a rating of satisfactory/unsatisfactory on teaching, scholarship and creative activity, and service, or it may take some other form, such as feedback regarding specific performance tasks. Examples of the latter include a review of a published article or a review of a peer’s teaching based upon a classroom visit.
Source: Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes (4/20/1993, 4/21/2017)
Approved By: Chancellor Christina Drale
Originator: Faculty Senate
Custodian: Faculty Senate