4.03 FACULTY PERFORMANCE, RECOGNITION, AND EVALUATION
Effective: November 19, 2025
Purpose: Emporia State University is committed to recruiting only those faculty who show clear promise of success in the academic setting. The University is committed to the principles of academic freedom and, within those principles, to the system of tenure. Tenure is an important part of academic freedom but does not accord freedom from accountability. Just as the University is committed to recruit excellent faculty and to ensure the excellence of their performance, so too is the University dedicated to faculty renewal and development. Thus, the concept of regular, rigorous faculty review is a part of the University’s commitment to providing support to every faculty member.
Scope: This policy applies to all University faculty.
Responsible Office: Human Resources; Academic Affairs
Policy Statement:
I. Notification of Policies
At the time of initial employment (i.e., within 2 weeks of assuming duties), each faculty member who is hired on either a tenure track or a continuous non-tenure track basis shall receive an up- to-date electronic or paper copy of the academic unit’s Faculty Recognition Committee document, which explains the policies of the academic unit, school or college (if applicable), and the University regarding faculty evaluation, including retention, promotion, tenure, post tenure review, sabbatical leave, and other policies. Faculty Recognition Committee (FRC) documents shall be developed by, and approved by a majority vote of, the academic unit’s faculty, followed by consecutive approval of the academic unit’s administrative supervisor, school/college dean, and the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs. Changes to the Faculty Recognition Committee document shall follow the same development and approval process.
II. Faculty Recognition Policy
All Emporia State University tenured and tenure-track faculty are expected to make contributions to teaching, research, and service. The amount and nature of these contributions should reflect the standards of the faculty member's discipline and specific assignment to ESU. Moreover, teaching faculty members who are not connected with the tenure system may, or may not, have expectations in the areas of research and/or service; if these expectations exist, then these expectations shall be in written form consistent with this policy. Expectations for the percentage of faculty’s effort and expected activities for the academic year are to be enumerated in the faculty’s annual work plan and approved by the unit’s Dean and the Provost.
Consistent with the Notification of Faculty Performance Policies and Salary Plan Policy, each faculty member who will return to ESU in a teaching capacity shall be evaluated. This includes the requirement for annual evaluation when merit salary increases are absent or small.
Exceptions to this policy include faculty members who permanently separated from ESU within the calendar year. This includes but is not limited to resignation or retirement from ESU within the calendar year that coincides with the evaluation year. Moreover, if the intent to resign or retire was formally initiated before December 31 of a calendar year, then an annual evaluation for that calendar year is not required unless the faculty member or the academic unit’s administrative supervisor request an annual evaluation.
Salary decisions will be based on a written annual evaluation of these contributions. In contrast with merit salary increases, the decision and/or recommendation for reappointment, tenure, promotion, Post Tenure Review, and sabbatical leave will be based on the faculty member’s contributions over their entire career or a designated time frame longer than 1 year.
In every case, the faculty member's performance will be judged by all parties involved in recognition decisions on the basis of written policy statements or criteria (i.e., specific requirements) developed by the academic unit with which the faculty member is involved. These criteria should reflect the highest professional standards associated with University work. Faculty recognition includes the granting of tenure, salary increases and adjustments, reappointments, promotions, Post Tenure Review, and sabbatical leaves. While recognition certainly includes leaves of absence without pay, reduced loads and other modifications in assignment, office and laboratory space assignments, teaching assignments, and honors accorded, these types of recognition are not within the scope of this policy. This policy is intended to apply to all unclassified employees who are eligible for the types of recognition described herein.
The primary responsibility for initiating the process of recommendations to the President and the Provost & Vice President for Academic Affairs regarding faculty recognition resides with the academic unit’s administrative supervisor. Faculty members under consideration are to be kept informed of each recognition recommendation and copies of these evaluations and recommendations shall be provided to the faculty member. Missing evaluations shall not be created retroactively and the absence of an evaluation shall not be used to the disadvantage of the faculty member. Academic unit administrative supervisors are expected to work closely with their recognition committees and their deans in making recognition decisions.
On some recognition matters specific policies require consideration by an academic unit’s committee. Unless otherwise specified, academic unit administrative supervisors are to give their faculties the option, by a secret ballot process, of being involved in faculty recognition by October 1 of each year. If faculty involvement is elected, each academicunit administrative supervisor in consultation with their faculty, shall establish appropriate procedures for that purpose. These procedures must ensure that any committees formed for such involvement be democratically constituted. Each academic unit’s faculty must determine which recognition matters are to be considered by its committee(s).
The academic unit’s administrative supervisor is required to make a specific independent, written recommendation on each personnel item. If the faculty of an academic unit has exercised its option to be involved in recognition decisions, the academic unit’s administrative supervisor must transmit all committee recommendations in writing to the Provost along with their own specific recommendations. The academic unit’s administrative supervisor also must give to the appropriate committee, and to the faculty member involved, a notice as to whether their personal recommendations agree or disagree with the committee's recommendations. At this time the reasons for the academic unit administrative supervisor’s recommendations must be given to the faculty member. These reasons may be shared with the committee if the faculty member does not object.
The dean must make a specific, independent, written recommendation on each personnel item. The dean has the responsibility of submitting all previous recommendations with their own to the Provost. The dean also has the responsibility of notifying the academic unit administrative supervisor in writing of the reasons for any decisions which differ from recommendations made by an academic unit’s administrative supervisor or a recommendation committee.
The academic unit’s administrative supervisor then has the responsibility of notifying the recognition committee whether the dean agrees or disagrees with its recommendations.
The Provost and the President have responsibility of informing the Dean whether or not they agree with the recommendations that have been forwarded by the Dean. Reasons for disagreement with such recommendations must be given in writing to the Dean.
At every level in the recognition process a faculty member may withdraw a request for recognition. Such a withdrawal must be in written form.
III. Annual Faculty Evaluation
It is the Board of Regents policy that the performance of every faculty member is evaluated and that merit increases are based on the annual evaluation of each faculty member’s performance. Each academic unit’s Faculty Recognition Document and each faculty member’s Annual Work Plan contain clear statements of expectations and accountability that recognize merit and hold faculty responsible when they fall short. At ESU this process is participatory, cooperative, continuing and meets the following objectives:
- To recognize that the education of students is the highest priority of ESU. The education of students occurs in a variety of ways and venues, including the classroom, research laboratories, and libraries. Consequently, individual faculty orunits may vary their emphasis on instruction, scholarly activity, and service. Annual evaluations reflect individual faculty assignments.
- To involve faculty in the design and evaluation of expectations central to their performance and professional growth.
- To provide a documented record of faculty performance to support such personnel decisions.
- To recognize special talents, capabilities, and achievements of faculty members.
- To develop strategies to link evaluation and its outcomes to assistance and support for growth and development.
1. Evaluating Teaching Effectiveness
A comprehensive and flexible approach to the evaluation of teaching is expected in each academic unit, with clear criteria and benchmarks enumerated in the unit’s faculty recognition document that allow for multiple sources of information to document success in teaching.
The academic unit’s faculty recognition document, faculty recognition committee, and Dean may provide guidance to the faculty candidate for preparing and presenting the evidence the unit will consider in evaluating teaching effectiveness.
These might include the content of the course, its design, and presentation. For example, (a) syllabi, examinations and samples of graded exams, handouts, and textbooks may be evaluated by peers for their suitability and coherence, (b) videos of class presentations may be viewed by peers to evaluate presentation of material, or (c) the academic unit’s Dean and/or peers may sit through class periods evaluating teaching and learning. Exit interviews and graduate interviews may also provide information.
Beginning with the faculty member’s annual work plan and extending through the review processes, Deans participate in the evaluation of each faculty member and meet with the faculty member to discuss the evaluation. Based upon the ESU strategic plan and academic unit goals, all faculty, including tenured and tenure track faculty members, discuss with the the amount of effort the faculty member will devote to teaching, scholarly activity, and service. The faculty member and Dean construct the faculty member’s Annual Work Plan, which describes the amount of effort the faculty member will devote to the areas and sets benchmarks for performance in those areas. Merit evaluations follow this agreement, and the agreements reflect varying emphases at different times during a faculty member’s career.
2. Student Ratings of Instruction
In compliance with the Kansas Board of Regents policy, Emporia State University requires all full-time and part-time faculty members to have their teaching performance rated anonymously by students under standard conditions at least once per semester. The evaluation instrument must be norm-referenced, controlled for initial student bias/motivation, and adjusted for other major research-demonstrated biases. At a minimum, it must solicit student perspectives on instruction delivery, learning assessment, faculty availability, and course goals.
Faculty must evaluate at least one course per semester, choosing a course with at least 15 students enrolled; if no course meets this threshold, they must evaluate the course with the highest enrollment. The academic unit’s faculty recognition document can mandate more frequent evaluations but cannot require fewer. Unless specified otherwise by the unit’s faculty recognition document, faculty members choose which courses are evaluated.
Student ratings are confidential personnel records under the law, intended primarily to help faculty improve instruction and to assist academic units and the University in enhancing teaching effectiveness. They are considered only one of several factors in overall evaluations and personnel decisions, including salary increases, promotion, and tenure. Ratings can only be used to compare faculty within the same academic unit.
After course grades are submitted, the faculty member gains access to the data and may jointly discuss the evaluation with their administrative supervisor (Dean) during their annual review, maintaining the prerogative to submit written comments that become an integral part of the final evaluation record.
IV. Post Tenure Review
As mandated by the Kansas Board of Regents policy, in addition to the annual evaluation required of all full-time and full-time equivalent faculty, tenured faculty members undergo a post-tenure review five years after receiving tenure. Post-tenure reviews will continue at five-year intervals unless a review for promotion is warranted.
The main goal of this process is to help faculty identify opportunities that will allow them to reach their full potential for contributing to the university. Post-tenure reviews aim to provide a long-term perspective compared to the annual review.
A post-tenure review committee shall conduct the review. The academic unit’s administrative supervisor shall form the post-tenure review committee, which must consist of at least five individuals, no more than half of whom can be from the academic unit of the faculty member under review.
Tenured faculty members who receive an unsatisfactory post-tenure review evaluation will be placed on a one-year improvement plan, developed with input from the faculty to the academic unit administrative supervisor or direct supervisor and approved by the Provost. The one-year improvement plan should set goals that address the deficiencies noted in the post-tenure review and which can reasonably be achieved in one academic year. Faculty who do not satisfactorily complete the improvement plan are subject to an additional one-year improvement plan, dismissal, reassignment, or other personnel actions, as determined by the Provost.
Tenured faculty in phased retirement are excluded from post tenure review since they already have contractually agreed to a retirement date.
V. Faculty Performance and Recognition Decisions When Transfers of Faculty Members Between Academic Units or Mergers of Academic Units are Involved
If a faculty member transitions to a new academic unit, whether through transfer or merger, then the faculty member shall have the option for one full year during the transition period to be evaluated by the previous academic unit’s faculty recognition document (FRD) or by the FRD of the academic unit to which they transition. This transition year applies to evaluations for retention, tenure, promotion, merit pay, and sabbatical leave. At the end of the transition year, the faculty member will be evaluated by the FRD of the new school or college.
The one-year improvement plan shall neither prematurely cease nor restart due to a transfer or a merger (i.e., the time clock does not stop or restart if it has already begun). The timelines and benchmarks remain the same as established in the improvement plan, with corrective faculty development continuing without interruption over the remaining designated time period.
A faculty member who is on an improvement plan shall be evaluated according to the specific criteria and benchmarks of the improvement plan. Absent current involvement in an improvement plan, a transfer or a merger shall not place a faculty member into one. All good faith effort is expected to ensure the faculty member in transition is not placed in a position of disadvantage due to the transfer or merger. Faculty maintain the right to appeal any adverse decision they feel may have resulted from a change of faculty recognition document during a transfer or merger.
After tenure is earned, its rights and responsibilities remain with the faculty member regardless of transfer or merger. A transfer or merger should place a previously qualified faculty member into an academic unit where they would be productive and qualified; never the opposite. It is incumbent on the university administration, faculty, and staff to make these transitions as smooth as possible and to ensure that faculty continue to perform at a high level.
Definitions: All words and phrases shall be interpreted utilizing their plain meanings unless otherwise defined in another University or Board of Regents policy or by statute or regulation.
Academic Unit - For the purposes of this policy, schools and colleges are considered as academic units.
Academic Unit’s Administrative Supervisor - For the purposes of this policy Deans are considered as their academic unit’s administrative supervisor.
Procedures: All procedures linked and related to the policies above shall have the full force and effect of policy if said procedures have first been properly approved by the University’s administrator in charge of Human Resources and/or Academic Affairs.
[Human Resources Procedures - coming soon]
Related Policy Information: 3.51 – Termination of Employment; 4.04 – Tenure