7.3.5 Annual Evaluation of Instructional and Library Faculty

7.3.5 Annual Evaluation of Instructional and Library Faculty

Introduction

In keeping with South Carolina state law, all faculty members at the College of Charleston will be evaluated annually in accordance with the College’s established standards and criteria and with established procedures.

Annual evaluations shall serve two functions: (1) to guide the professional development of the faculty member, and (2) to record part of the evidence upon which personnel decisions and salary recommendations shall be based.

Department Chairs and the Dean of Libraries are responsible for the annual performance evaluation of each faculty member within their departments. In the exceptional case that a faculty member is housed in a program and not in a department, the Program Director will assume the role of Department Chair in the evaluation process.

A full performance evaluation is conducted for each Instructor and untenured faculty member for each calendar year, with the exception of the years in which the Third-Year Review and the review for tenure or promotion to Senior Instructor are conducted.

Tenured faculty and Senior Instructors may request the same performance evaluation ratings that were given the previous year for up to two years. A full performance evaluation must be conducted at least once every three years, covering the calendar years since the last full performance evaluation or major evaluation (i.e., review for tenure and/or promotion or renewal as Senior Instructor, application for “superior” post-tenure review reviewed by the Post-Tenure Review Committee).³⁹ A faculty member hired with tenure will undergo full performance evaluations in the faculty member’s first and second years and at least every three years following. (Rev. Aug. 2018)

In addition, each faculty member with at least one full calendar year of service at the College will be assigned a merit category on the basis of recent performance as one factor to be considered in the determination of any salary increase. Newly hired faculty members will not be assigned a merit category. Instead, normally each will receive an “average” raise determined by the relevant dean and based on the percentage of the salary pool allocated to the faculty member’s school for raises.

Each annual performance evaluation should include strengths, weaknesses, and specific recommendations for improvement. Probationary faculty should be rigorously evaluated each year in preparation for third-year and tenure reviews.

The form of the performance evaluation may vary by school and department, as well as by the rank of the faculty member being evaluated. At a minimum, the Chair or Dean of Libraries will provide an appraisal letter addressing teaching effectiveness, research and professional development, and professional service (for teaching faculty) and professional competency, professional growth and development, and professional service (for library faculty). Departments and schools may develop additional rating instruments.

It is the responsibility of the individual faculty member to ensure that individual is making appropriate progress toward meeting the criteria published in the Faculty/Administration Manual for other evaluations (tenure and promotion) as well as any additional criteria approved by the school and/or department, and to seek the advice of the Chair or Dean of Libraries and other department faculty toward that end. (Rev. Aug. 2018)

A tenure and/or promotion review requires additional evidence beyond that required for an annual review of performance or assignment of merit category, as well as assessment over a different time frame. For instance, a department may conduct a peer review of teaching or an external review of research, and graduate surveys are solicited at the time of tenure and promotion decisions.

Annual performance and merit reviews constitute only one of many factors that are considered during the tenure and/or promotion decisionmaking process and in no way conclusively determine that outcome. Because tenure and promotion decisions often involve an assessment of career achievement and potential, as well as a demonstrated ongoing commitment to scholarship and to the mission of the institution, annual performance reviews and the assignment of merit categories to a faculty member for purposes of salary administration for one or several years are insufficient, by themselves, to determine the outcome of such important decisions.

Standards, Criteria and Evidence for Annual Evaluation

Schools and departments may develop specific policies, criteria and standards for annual evaluation and the assignment of merit categories in their units. Criteria should be clearly stated and available to all members of the department or school. They may vary in detail but they must be consistent with general College policies. (See Faculty/Administration Manual, Sections VI.A, VI.B, and VI.C.) In particular, teaching is the primary responsibility of faculty at the College of Charleston.

Approval of these plans by the appropriate Academic Dean and by the Provost is required before implementation. After initial adoption, any significant changes must be sent to the Provost for approval before implementation. All approved school and department annual evaluation and merit review policies will be available to all College faculty members.

Annual Evaluation and Merit Review Process

Annual performance evaluations will normally be completed early in each calendar year. A calendar for the evaluation process is posted on the website of the Office of the Provost.

Each tenured faculty member or Senior Instructor requests early in January, in writing to the Chair, either that the rating received under the most recent full performance evaluation stand or that a full evaluation be conducted. In the case of a request that a previous evaluation stand, the chair will provide in writing by January 25 either approval of this request or a denial of the request and brief explanation of why a full evaluation will be conducted. A Chair or Dean may require that a faculty member undergo a full evaluation in any given year. The Chair will provide the Dean with a list of faculty for whom the Chair expects to allow previous performance evaluations to stand and receive acknowledgement of this list before providing written approval of such requests to faculty. A department or school may require, as a component of a written policy, that all faculty undergo full performance evaluations every year. (Rev. Aug. 2018)

Chairs are responsible for ensuring that a full evaluation of a Senior Instructor or tenured faculty member is conducted at least every three years. Deans are responsible for reviewing chairs’ records and completed evaluations.

While specific policies may differ by school and department, all full annual performance evaluations should provide sufficient information to allow for full, fair and constructive evaluation without being unnecessarily burdensome to faculty or Department Chairs. At a minimum, faculty members will provide

a current curriculum vitae, and
a 1-2 page personal statement presenting accomplishments in the areas of teaching, research and professional development, and service (or, in the case of librarians, professional competence, professional growth and development, and service) over the period since the last full performance evaluation.

Additional documentation required for a full performance evaluation may vary by tenure status and rank or by department and school. Evidence of the sort typically provided for major evaluations should be requested of probationary faculty. Schools and departments may require that the personal statement include goals for the next one-to-three years. The Department Chair or Dean of Libraries will conduct the annual evaluation and will have access to additional information, including the faculty member’s

previous annual evaluations and personal statements,
course-instructor evaluations, and
information included in the Faculty Activity System.

If a previous performance evaluation is to stand, the faculty member enters recent accomplishments into the Faculty Activity System and provides the faculty member’s Chair with an updated curriculum vita (with activities since the last performance evaluation highlighted) and any further information appropriate, in accordance with deadlines for the submission of updates listed on the calendar for performance evaluations. Such information will assist the Chair and Dean in the assignment of a merit category and recommendations for any merit raises available before the next full evaluation takes place. (Rev. Aug. 2018)

The Department Chair or Dean of Libraries will assign a merit category at the time that performance evaluations are completed, based on a faculty member’s recent performance evaluations, typically over the last three years. If a previous performance evaluation rating is remaining in place at the request of the faculty member, the assignment of a merit category will incorporate any additional information on recent accomplishments provided by the faculty member. In the case of the Department Chair, this assignment will normally be tentative until discussed with the Dean. Newly hired faculty will not be assigned a merit category.

The assignment of a merit category will be provided to the faculty member with the written documentation of a full performance evaluation (as a separate document which should not be included with performance evaluations in packets prepared for major evaluations). For a faculty member who has received approval of a request that a full performance evaluation conducted previously remain standing, separate notice of the assignment of a merit category will be provided in writing following the calendar for performance evaluations established by the Provost’s Office.

In the case of a faculty member undergoing a major evaluation (ThirdYear Review, tenure and/or promotion, post-tenure review, or renewal as Senior Instructor), an evaluation of performance over the last calendar year will not be conducted. A merit category for the purposes of salary administration will be assigned. Normally, the documentation provided by the faculty member in the major evaluation will be sufficient to allow the Chair to assign a merit category. (Since major evaluation packets are completed early in the fall semester, documentation of activities through the end of the calendar year could reasonably be added for this assignment.) This assignment of a merit category will consider the faculty member’s performance during the same window used for other faculty, typically three years.

The Department Chair may consult with a faculty committee in conducting the annual evaluation or assigning a merit category.

The faculty member must present the requested documents in accordance with the established format for the faculty member’s department or school and the published schedule. Any faculty member who fails to submit the required documentation for that individual’s annual evaluation and assignment of merit category will receive a merit rating of “does not meet the merit threshold” and will be ineligible for a salary increase that year. (Rev. Aug. 2018)

In the case of library faculty who are supervised by department heads and/or assistant deans, these supervisors will provide written comments on the performance of the librarians. These comments are forwarded to the Dean of Libraries who uses them as the Dean of Libraries writes the final evaluation narrative. The librarian receives the comments from all supervisors in addition to the Dean’s final evaluation. (Rev. Aug. 2018)

After reviewing materials submitted by the faculty member, the Department Chair or the Dean of Libraries shall provide the faculty member with a signed and dated evaluation and separate assignment of a merit category.

Chair’s Interview with the Faculty Member

By the date designated on the evaluation calendar, the Chair or Dean of Libraries shall conduct an interview with each member of the department. At least one week prior to the interview, the faculty member will receive the Chair’s or Dean of Libraries’ narrative assessment of strengths and weaknesses and suggestions for improvement. Records of the evaluation will be on file in the office of the Department Chair. (Rev. Aug. 2018)

At the evaluation interview, the faculty member and the Chair or Dean of Libraries will discuss the evaluation narrative. The faculty member will sign the form to indicate that the faculty member has met with the Chair or Dean of Libraries. If there is disagreement about any part of the evaluation, the Chair or Dean of Libraries and the faculty member shall seek to resolve those differences. If a resolution is reached, the Chair shall change the evaluation document accordingly if appropriate. (Rev. Aug. 2018)

Appeal of Annual Evaluation

A faculty member may appeal the annual evaluation to the appropriate Academic Dean by submitting a written request for an appeal hearing to the Dean within 10 working days of the evaluation interview. The Dean will arrange and chair a meeting with the faculty member and the Department Chair to discuss the appeal. At the appeal hearing, the faculty member should state specifically the basis for the appeal and provide appropriate information in support of the appeal. The Dean will attempt to mediate an agreement between the faculty member and the Chair. If unsuccessful, the Dean will reach a decision and inform all parties in writing. The faculty member may appeal the Dean’s decision to the Provost who will receive all written material pertaining to the case. After consultation with the faculty member, the Department Chair and the Dean, the Provost will render the final decision in writing to all parties concerned. (Rev. Aug. 2018)

Library faculty should follow the steps outlined above. Their appeals should, however, go directly to the Provost, who will render the final decision.

Dean’s and Provost’s Role in the Assignment of Merit Categories

The Dean plays an active role in the development of departmental and school criteria and standards for annual evaluation and the assignment of merit categories. The Dean is responsible for ensuring that these standards and criteria are applied by Chairs equitably across departments in the Dean’s school. The Provost is responsible for ensuring that these standards and criteria are applied by Deans across schools. Normally a Dean and Chair will discuss the assignment of merit categories before this assignment is considered final. (Rev. Aug. 2018)

Appeal of Merit Category Assigned

A faculty member may appeal the assignment of a merit category to the faculty member’s performance by following the procedure outlined in Section VI.E.5, above. Chair, Dean and Provost will proceed as in Section VI.E.5. However, the Provost’s role in this appeal is limited to ensuring, through discussion with the Dean and/or Chair, that the assignment of the merit category is consistent with criteria and standards at the Department, School and College level and with the assignment of merit categories to others in the Department or School, as appropriate. (Rev. Aug. 2018) (Rev. Apr. 2009, Aug. 2014)

^{39 A full performance evaluation covering a multi-year review period should provide separate comments on and assessments regarding the year or years for which a full performance evaluation was not provided and the most recent year, for which a full performance evaluation is conducted. The evaluation materials prepared by the faculty member and the written performance evaluation prepared by the Department Chair should not create confusion about the calendar year in which faculty activity has occurred.}

Related Policies, Documents or Forms

7.3.5 Annual Evaluation of Instructional and Library Faculty (FAM VI.E) PDF

Revision Log

Web Publication Date: 1/20/2026