Common use of EVALUATION GUIDELINES Clause in Contracts

EVALUATION GUIDELINES. The administration will develop a set of evaluation guidelines for each of the faculty ranks that indicate performance characteristics appropriate to each rating for teaching, scholarship, and service. (a) Judgments of academic excellence are complex. Evaluation guidelines cannot easily be reduced to a quantitative formula, nor can the considerations that must be applied in each individual case be completely described in general terms or by numbers alone, separate from necessary qualitative assessments. Therefore, the guidelines are used to create consistency in ratings across the range of evaluators and are specifically not a scoring rubric. (b) The guidelines for a review period will be provided to the academic departments by September 15 of the year prior to the beginning of the review period and the departments will provide comment on the guidelines on or before November 1 of that year. The comments provided must be approved by majority vote of the department. The vote must take place anonymously. By January 15, the review evaluation panel will consider the department recommendations and provide a recommendation to the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ on evaluation guidelines to be used for the next review cycle. The University must provide the final guidelines to faculty before the review period begins. (c) Annual evaluations for February 1, 2019 through January 31, 2020 period will use the evaluation guidelines that were used for the 2017-2018 evaluations. The University must provide the final guidelines to Employees before the start of classes in the Fall 2019 semester. (d) The scale for the evaluations is provided in the following table: EVALUATION KEY Unsatisfactory Performance that is clearly substandard. Needs Improvement Performance that is below a reasonable expectation for the person’s job description. Meets Expectations Performance is sound and within reasonable expectations for the person’s job description. Exceeds Expectations Performance is sound and within reasonable expectations for the person’s job description. The individual has distinguished themselves in some way by performing at a level that is above a normal expectation for their job description. Exemplary Performance is sound and above reasonable expectations for the person’s job description. The individual has truly done something that is outstanding.

EVALUATION GUIDELINES. The administration University will develop a set of evaluation guidelines for each of the faculty ranks that indicate performance characteristics appropriate to each rating for teaching, scholarship, and service. (a) Judgments of academic excellence are complex. Evaluation guidelines cannot easily be reduced to a quantitative formula, nor can the considerations that must be applied in each individual case be completely described in general terms or by numbers alone, separate from necessary qualitative assessments. Therefore, the guidelines are used to create consistency in ratings across the range of evaluators and are specifically not a scoring rubric. (b) The guidelines for a review period will be provided to the academic departments by September 15 of the year prior to the beginning of the review period and the departments will provide comment comments on the guidelines on or before November 1 of that year. The comments provided must be approved by the majority vote of the department. The vote must take place anonymously. By January 15, the review evaluation panel will consider the department recommendations and provide a recommendation to the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ on evaluation guidelines to be used for the next review cycle. The University must provide the final guidelines to faculty before the review period begins. (c) Annual evaluations for February 1, 2019 through January 31, 2020 period will use the evaluation guidelines that were used for the 2017-2018 evaluations. The University must provide the final guidelines to Employees before the start of classes in the Fall 2019 semester. (d) The scale for the evaluations is provided in the following table: EVALUATION KEY Unsatisfactory . The performance rating will typically be used in setting salary increases as described in Article 12. Evaluation Key Deficient Performance that is clearly substandarddoes not meet an acceptable standard. This rating will typically require a supervisor and Employee to develop a performance improvement plan. Needs Improvement Performance that is below a reasonable expectation for the person’s job description. Meets Expectations Performance is sound and within reasonable expectations for the person’s job description. Supervisors may add a “+” or a “-“ to this rating as further indicators of an Employee’s performance. Exceeds Expectations Performance is sound and within reasonable expectations for that goes beyond the person’s job description“Meets Expectations” standard in some significant way. The individual has distinguished themselves in some way by performing performed at a level that is above a normal expectation provides distinction for their job descriptionthemselves. Exemplary Performance that is sound extraordinary and above reasonable expectations reflects outstanding distinction for the person’s job description. The individual has truly done something that is outstandingindividual.

EVALUATION GUIDELINES. The administration University will develop a set of evaluation guidelines for each of the faculty ranks that indicate performance characteristics appropriate to each rating for teaching, scholarship, and service.service.‌ (a) Judgments of academic excellence are complex. Evaluation guidelines cannot easily be reduced to a quantitative formula, nor can the considerations that must be applied in each individual case be completely described in general terms or by numbers alone, separate from necessary qualitative assessments. Therefore, the guidelines are used to create consistency in ratings across the range of evaluators and are specifically not a scoring rubric. (b) The guidelines for a review period will be provided to the academic departments by September 15 of the year prior to the beginning of the review period and the departments will provide comment comments on the guidelines on or before November 1 of that year. The comments provided must be approved by the majority vote of the department. The vote must take place anonymously. By January 15, the review evaluation panel will consider the department recommendations and provide a recommendation to the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ on evaluation guidelines to be used for the next review cycle. The University must provide the final guidelines to faculty before the review period begins. (c) Annual evaluations for February 1, 2019 through January 31, 2020 period will use the evaluation guidelines that were used for the 2017-2018 evaluations. The University must provide the final guidelines to Employees before the start of classes in the Fall 2019 semester. (d) The scale for the evaluations is provided in the following table: EVALUATION KEY Unsatisfactory . The performance rating will typically be used in setting salary increases as described in Article 12. Evaluation Key Deficient Performance that is clearly substandarddoes not meet an acceptable standard. This rating will typically require a supervisor and Employee to develop a performance improvement plan. Needs Improvement Performance that is below a reasonable expectation for the person’s job description. Meets Expectations Performance is sound and within reasonable expectations for the person’s job description. Supervisors may add a “+” or a “-“ to this rating as further indicators of an Employee’s performance. Exceeds Expectations Performance is sound and within reasonable expectations for that goes beyond the person’s job description“Meets Expectations” standard in some significant way. The individual has distinguished themselves in some way by performing performed at a level that is above a normal expectation provides distinction for their job descriptionthemselves. Exemplary Performance that is sound extraordinary and above reasonable expectations reflects outstanding distinction for the person’s job description. The individual has truly done something that is outstandingindividual.