Policy Number: II-1.20(A)
University of Maryland, College Park Policy on Periodic Evaluation of Faculty Performance
(Approved by President William E. Kirwan Revised )
With the intent of facilitating continued professional development of the faculty, faculty members shall undergo formal periodic review of their professional activities. For the purposes of this Policy, the term "faculty" shall be defined as tenured faculty, and instructors and lecturers with job security. The primary purpose of this periodic faculty review is to:
- recognize long-term meritorious performance;
- improve quality of faculty efforts in teaching, scholarship, and service;
- increase opportunities for professional development; and
- uncover impediments to faculty productivity.
Each academic unit shall develop a plan for periodic review of faculty as part of its Plan of Organization. This review process should be consistent with traditional principles of peer review, and should provide for the comprehensive review of each faculty member no less frequently than every 5 years. Two consecutive periodic reviews that indicate that a faculty member is materially deficient in meeting expectations shall occasion an immediate comprehensive review. Separate reviews mandated for consideration for promotion in rank or for review of faculty administrators may substitute for this faculty review. In those cases, those review policies shall take precedence. Review processes mandated for the distribution of merit pay and/or for contract renewal may be used as part of the comprehensive review of the faculty member. The breadth and depth of the review process should be appropriate to the frequency of the review.
The principal instrument of the periodic review of faculty shall be a written report generated by the faculty member under review that addresses for the period of review:
- teaching, advising, and other educational activities;
- research, scholarly or creative activities; and
- documented service activities to the University, state, nation, professional community, or other organization.
The report may include an annotated synopsis of peer or public reveiw processes which the faculty member has undergone since the previous periodic review.
This written report shall be appraised by a review committee, as specified in the unit Plan of Organization, and a written appraisal prepared. Faculty under review shall have the opportunity to review the peer appraisal of their activities generated by this process and shall have the right to attach a response prior to submission to the unit administrator. Faculty choosing to exercise this option shall either submit the response to the review committee within 14 calendar days of receipt of the appraisal, or establish an agreeable alternate deadline with the review committee for submitting the response.
The review portfolio - consisting, at the minimum, of the faculty member's written report, the review committee's appraisal, and the faculty member's response, if that option has been exercised - shall be submitted to the unit administrator in a timely manner, as specified in the unit Plan of Organization or unit Bylaws.
The results of a periodic review should have major influence on a faculty member's future, and on the rewards to the faculty member. The results of a review should generate a discussion between a faculty member and the unit administrator. This discussion should concentrate on the future professional development of the faculty member. The faculty member and the unit administrator shall prepare a firm written development plan, with timetable, for enhancing meritorious work and improving less satisfactory performance.
Academic Units include departments within a college, non-departmentalized colleges where the dean is looked upon as the unit head.