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.

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 reviews and reviews for tenure or promotion to Senior Instructor.

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 (or professional development for instructor-line faculty), and professional service (for teaching faculty) and professional competency, professional growth and development, and professional service (for library faculty).

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), 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, as well as assessment over a different time frame. For instance, In a tenure or promotion review, 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 decision-making 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 merit raises 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 and divisional 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 raise 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 published by the Provost Office.

Chairs are responsible for ensuring that an evaluation of all permanent faculty is conducted annually and 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. a current curriculum vitae, and
b. narratives 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 evaluation period.

Additional documentation required for a performance evaluation may vary by tenure status and rank or by department and school. Evidence of the sort typically provided for major reviews 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:

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

In the case of a faculty member undergoing a major review (third-year review, tenure and/or promotion, post-tenure review, or renewal as Senior Instructor), an evaluation of performance over the last calendar year can be based on materials submitted in the fall semester for the major review plus materials for the additional accomplishments and courses taught during the fall.

The Department Chair may consult with a faculty committee in conducting the annual evaluation.

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 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.

Chair’s Interview with the Faculty Member

By the date designated on the evaluation calendar, the Chair or Dean of Libraries shall meet with each member of the department. At least one week prior to the meeting, 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 meeting, 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 meeting. 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 proposed merit increases. 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 raise recommendations before the dean’s recommendations are submitted to the provost. (Rev. Aug. 2018)

(Rev. 2024)

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