This webpage describes the intermediate system for annual review of RHE faculty given that they are still budgetarily under RHE while needing their evaluation conducted within the College of Business.
Activity Categories
Faculty activity will be evaluated in three categories: Teaching, Sustained Engagement Activities to maintain Faculty Qualification and Professional Activity/ Service.
Faculty Evaluation Criteria
Faculty Evaluation Criteria provides an anchored list to categorize faculty activity into five levels within each of the three basic activity categories. A faculty member’s performance will be ranked at highest of these levels where a significant amount (in quantity or quality) of their activity matches the activities listed at that level. Level 2 in each activity category is designed to include specified minimum expectations or activities that all faculty are expected to demonstrate. If a faculty member fails to meet all these minimum expectations may be used to reduce a faculty member’s rating in that category.
The Annual Evaluation Process
For annual performance evaluation, all faculty members (on a full-year continuing contract – tenure track and instructional) will submit materials for the immediate past academic year (Fall, Spring and Summer semesters). This submission will use the Faculty Annual Evaluation Form to place activities into the appropriate levels for each of the three basic activity categories and provide an explanation of the rationale for those placements .These activities can be documented by any supporting documentation the faculty member wishes to provide such as course evaluations, letters from committee chairs, copies of intellectual contribution activities, and other evidence of activities.
This material will be submitted initially to the Dean’s office by October 1st and then forwarded to the RHE Faculty Evaluation Committee. This committee will review the faculty member's submission and complete a peer version of the Faculty Annual Evaluation Form that ranks the activities for the faculty member at one of the rubric levels in each of the three basic activity categories. This peer version of the form will be submitted to the chair/director of the department/school that is the tenure/promotion home of each RHE faculty member for consideration along with the self-evaluation materials submitted by the faculty member. The chair/director will create the final ranking of the activities of the faculty member for the three basic activity categories. This decision will be documented on a final version of the Faculty Annual Evaluation Form, which will serve as the college evaluation of the faculty member's performance. This form will include rankings for the three basic activity categories with a rationale for those rankings and an assessment of the academic and professional qualifications for each faculty member.
Copies of the committee’s Faculty Annual Evaluation Form (Peer) and the Department version of the Faculty Evaluation Form will be sent to the faculty member. All supporting documentation will be returned to the faculty member.
Faculty Evaluation Committee Composition
The RHE Faculty Evaluation Committee shall consist of all Tenure-Track and Instructional faculty members within the college with appointments associated with RHE plus an ex-officio representative from the Dean’s office (typically an Associate Dean). This committee will participate in an advisory role to the appropriate chair/director in the Faculty Annual Performance Evaluation process.
Deadlines
| Deadline Dates | Deadline Information |
|---|---|
| October 1 | Last date for submission of Faculty Evaluation Form and any supporting documentation to the department. |
| End of Fall Semester | RHE Faculty Evaluation committee submits the Faculty Annual Evaluation Form (peer) along with the faculty member's materials to the chair/director of the department/school that is the tenure/promotion home of each regional campus faculty member. |
| February 1 | Department/School provides faculty with a written statement of his or her evaluation. If the chair/director ratings on the Faculty Evaluation Form are different than the ratings of the RHE Faculty Evaluation Committee, the chair/director will provide an explanation for the change. |
| April 1 | Deadline for faculty appeal to Dean (when applicable). |
Translation of Ratings into Raises
From the initial raise pool received by the college, a percentage for special merit pool may be removed by RHE. The college will recommend a distribution of the remainder to RHE. For purposes of raise calculation, the ratings will be translated into a numerical equivalent as follows:
- Level 1: Point Value = 0
- Level 2: Point Value = 1
- Level 3: Point Value = 2
- Level 4: Point Value = 3
- Level 5: Point Value = 4
These numerical equivalents will then be weighted by multiplying the numerical equivalent by the percentage derived from the faculty members workload. For RHE faculty that will be 80% teaching, 10% sustained engagement and 10% service. The weighted numerical equivalents will then be added to produce a weighted average rating for the three basic activity categories. Since the percentages from the workload policy will add up to one, this weighted average rating will result in a number between zero and four. The final scores of all faculty members in RHE group will be averaged. Each faculty member’s salary is “normalized” relative to this average by dividing the faculty score by the department’s/school’s average. This normalized score is multiplied by the percentage of the raise pool that is allocated to the college using the total of all the salaries for faculty in the RHE group as a basis of allocation. This results in a percentage that is multiplied by the faculty member’s base salary to come up with a dollar raise. These dollar raises are adjusted slightly by the Dean to make sure all the raise dollars are allocated. Adjustment will be made by the Dean to stay within the control totals while maintaining consistency between faculty members with the same rating.
Years Without Raise Pools
In the event that the university does not have a raise pool, the evaluation from a particular year will not result in raise. This can create issues when faculty have a particularly strong evaluation in a year when that performance does not result in a higher raise.
To recognize this potential effect, ratings from years where there was no raise pool can be “banked” and used as part of an average in subsequent years when there is a raise.
Specifically, if there is no raise pool for one year and then raises return, the faculty member will have the option of averaging the score from the non-raise year with the score from the second year when raises are being awarded. Alternatively, the faculty member can also choose to simply use the score from the raise year and not use the score from the non-raise year.
If there are no raises for multiple years, the averaging can include up to three non-raise years plus the raise year. If there are more than three consecutive non-raise years, only the most recent three years will be used. All of the non-raise years must be included in the average if the faculty member chooses the averaging method.