Introduction

The Faculty of the Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies (WGSS) Department at the University of Kansas are committed to excellence in teaching, advising, research, and service. The concept of regular, rigorous faculty review is a critical part of our commitment of maintaining a vital and productive Department.

The purposes of evaluation of faculty performance are to assess the effectiveness of performance, to support continued effectiveness, and to assure that personnel decisions are sound and justifiable. The foundation of faculty evaluation is the annual performance review. We view systematic and rigorous evaluation as a continuing responsibility of the Chair and faculty colleagues (those closest to the day-to-day performance of duties). The annual evaluation process provides an opportunity for the Chair and colleagues to review progress toward performance of responsibilities in the context of professional and institutional goals, and to identify performance issues and strategies for development, renewal or change.

The consideration and evaluation of a faculty member’s record is a confidential personnel matter and all steps will be taken to ensure full confidentiality in all stages of evaluation, promotion, and tenure.

The process of a faculty member’s annual review and evaluation for tenure and promotion shall be conducted impartially and fairly; all votes shall be by members at or above the rank to which the faculty member is being considered (hereafter, at the appropriate rank). Any members involved in the process who have a clear conflict of interest or who could otherwise compromise the impartiality of the process may be asked to recuse themselves from participating; the faculty member being evaluated may also petition for the recusal of any member of the process who the candidate feels may jeopardize the impartiality of the evaluation.

The WGSS Department affirms the principle of academic freedom, the right to express oneself according to the truth as one sees it. Faculty members have the obligation, however, to exercise academic freedom responsibly.

What follows is WGSS’ statement on expectations of faculty members for purposes of annual review as well as decisions of Promotion and Tenure.

Faculty members are expected to be actively engaged in all three areas of teaching and advising, scholarship and/or creative activity, and service.

Statement of Performance Expectations

1. Unit Expectations

Teaching

The WGSS Department views teaching effectiveness as a vital responsibility of a faculty member, and it is an important factor in the evaluation of a faculty member. Effective teaching refers to the faculty member’s dissemination of knowledge to enhance students’ skills and foster intellectual growth. WGSS is an interdisciplinary department and some faculty members teach both courses specifically designed as WGSS courses (for example, our Senior Seminar which is the capstone course for our majors), as well as courses that are cross-listed with their joint appointments. Students’ quantitative and qualitative evaluation on forms (for all courses taught [Appendix A]), peer evaluations (before tenure and at least every three years following tenure [Appendix D]), teaching honors and awards, course syllabi and instructional materials/exams, participation in curriculum development for the Department, and innovations in teaching provide documentation of the quality of a faculty member’s teaching.

Advising

Every faculty member is expected to maintain regular, posted office hours each week. S/he should provide the Department office with a schedule of office hours.

Academic advising of majors, minors, and graduate students is an important aspect of the teaching responsibilities of all faculty members. New faculty members are expected to understand how requirements and courses fit into the overall degree structure, and help students to successfully to plan their academic studies.

Scholarly/Creative Activity

Faculty members are expected to engage in scholarly research and/or creative activity and contribute to the intellectual discourse in WGSS and affiliated disciplines. As an interdisciplinary department that draws faculty members from multiple disciplines, as well as those with interdisciplinary background, both the qualitative and quantitative expectations of research are highly contingent on the faculty member’s discipline or disciplinary standards. Whereas one field may encourage the publication of books, another may emphasize publication in journals, while still another may utilize evaluation of such creative pursuits as theater production and direction. Because of this we recognize the need for an inclusive evaluation system for scholarship and creativity as well as the need for the evaluators to be sensitive to the variability of research production across fields. Each of our joint-appointed faculty members will be regularly evaluated by her or his primary and secondary units. The Department expects faculty to conform to the standards established in those disciplines. Faculty holding both joint and full-time appointments in WGSS will be evaluated by WGSS evaluation standards.

The WGSS Department expects their faculty members to make the study of gender, women, or sexuality their primary focus of research. Documentation of scholarly and creative activity includes information on the extent of research and publication and creative outputs, presentation of research at meetings both within the discipline as well as interdisciplinary conferences, reviews from publishers and peers, reputation of the journals where articles appear, published reviews of books written, citations of publications, and seeking and attaining research grants.

Service

Service is an essential part of academic life, and faculty members are expected to perform their fair share of service responsibilities. Faculty members should contribute appropriate service at the level of the Department, the College and University, the wider community, and their profession. In joint appointments, we also recognize their contributions to their jointly appointed unit. Because WGSS is a highly visible department, faculty members are often called upon both within the university setting as well as outside to speak both on general issues about women as well as their own specific research on women, gender, or sexuality. In addition, the Department acts as a clearinghouse for information for the University community on women’s issues both nationally and internationally, and faculty members contribute to this informational service. This outreach component of the WGSS Department, combined with the joint appointment status of our faculty, often requires extensive departmental-level service. In evaluation, we recognize this when assessing service contributions at other levels.

2. Standards for Acceptable Performance for Faculty Members

Faculty members are annually evaluated in terms of whether or not they have met the acceptable performance standards in the responsibilities of teaching/advising, scholarship, and some service responsibilities. The standards are excellent (4), very good (3), good (2), marginal (1), and poor (0). To meet the acceptable performance standards, a faculty member must receive a good annual rating in the areas of teaching/advising, scholarly and creative activity, and service responsibilities; strong faculty members are likely to exceed these expectations.

Acceptable levels of performance are indicated by the regular receipt of a 2 or higher as described in the Evaluation Scale (Appendix C). Although the receipt of an evaluation of 1 or 0 is not desirable, if it is out of the ordinary for the evaluated faculty member, a plan developed in collaboration with the Chair will probably be sufficient for resolving the anomaly. However, a trend toward the receipt of 1 or 0 in any category over a period of time is cause for alarm. If a faculty member fails to perform adequately in any of the areas of teaching/advising, research and service (evidenced by failure to meet the department performance expectations in teaching/advising, research and service as defined above in Unit Expectations and the receipt of a 1 or 0 for performance in teaching/advising, research or service by the WGSS Evaluation Committee), the Department Chair and the individual will develop a written plan to address the areas of difficulty. Demonstration of a pattern of sustained failure to meet expectations over a three-year period may lead to the initiation of dismissal proceedings.

3. Differential Allocation of Effort

The WGSS Department expects faculty to devote equal attention to teaching and research. When evaluating faculty performance, the Department applies the weights of 40 percent for teaching, 40 percent for research, and 20 percent for service to the university, community, and profession. These weights are the same for tenured and non-tenured faculty, although the Department recognizes that the specific contributions of faculty members to the Department’s mission will differ depending on career stage.

Changes in the standard 40/40/20 allocation of effort for a set period of time can be initiated by the tenured faculty member or the Chair. These changes can be short- or long-term and must correspond to changes in work-load, not just evaluation criteria. Reasons for alterations can include short-term items such as funded research or longer-term career-stage issues. Faculty members are not allowed to reduce their teaching or research to less than 10 percent on permanent DAE agreements. Department needs take precedence over individual needs when making decisions to alter a faculty member’s allocation of effort; such redistribution must be consistent with the best interests of the unit. The most likely occasion for consideration of such changes is in discussion between the Chair and the individual faculty member following annual performance evaluations, or sooner so that appropriate arrangements may be made at the unit level for the coverage of course offerings. Any individualized changes in faculty allocation of effort will be negotiated with the Chair and documented in the faculty member’s personnel file.

For short-term DAE agreements (one academic year or less), the DAE is ultimately approved by the unit chairperson, with a copy of this endorsement sent to the associate dean for administrative affairs. For long-term DAE agreements (lasting more than one year), approval must also be sought from the appropriate dean in the College. All DAEs are reported annually to the College Dean’s Office. Agreements for long-term DAEs must be reviewed every three years, although either the faculty member or chairperson may request an earlier review in response to changed circumstances or performance. At that time, the agreement may be revised, terminated, or continued.

The selection among these options should be made following the guidelines and process for approval of long-term DAEs contained in the University Policy on Differential Allocation of Effort (DAE).

For the purposes of annual evaluation only, when faculty take service assignments (i.e. Director of Undergraduate Studies or Director of Graduate Studies), their allocation of effort also shifts because they are teaching one fewer class per year. In these cases the weight of their efforts shifts to 30 teaching/40 research/30 service. In the case of faculty on temporary leave, sabbatical, or fellowship, allocation of effort also shifts to accommodate a diminution of teaching and service during the period on leave. For instance, a faculty member who was on fellowship for an academic year (Fall/Spring) would have their annual allocation of effort changed to 20 teaching/70 research/10 service, because they were still present for one semester of the annual review period, during which they conducted normal service and teaching duties. A faculty member on research-intensive leave (RIL) for a semester would only have their teaching allocation reduced, but not their service allocation, which would still be required under RIL policies. Individual faculty members may consult with the Chair in advance of taking a leave to work out an individualized plan for allocation of effort. These might take into consideration the fact that a faculty member might have a teaching fellowship elsewhere or might be engaged in extensive service outside the University during a fellowship.

Annual Evaluation System

1. Overview

The performance evaluation process is initiated each year in the Department through notification from the Department Chair of the timeliness for submission of the evaluation portfolio. This notification is usually given in January and often sets a deadline in March for submission of materials.

Each faculty member is responsible for maintaining a portfolio documenting both quantity and quality of effort in teaching/advising, scholarly and/or creative activity, and service. The Department Evaluation Committee (DEC) is responsible for faculty evaluation.

Near the end of the fall semester, the Chair will notify faculty members that they should update their vita and fill out the three annual self-evaluations for Research, Teaching, and Service, indicating what ratings they believe they deserve in each category; see Appendix B for the forms that Faculty should use. All materials should be submitted electronically to the chair of the Department Evaluation Committee (DEC) by January 31.

The DEC, like other departmental service committees, will be appointed by the Chair at the end of the prior academic year. The DEC will consist of a minimum of three members, one of whom may be the Chair, and will be composed of faculty at a variety of ranks. Ideally faculty will serve a multi-year term on the DEC, though absences for fellowships and sabbaticals do not always allow for this continuity.

The Department Evaluation Committee is responsible for evaluating this material. The DEC will complete faculty evaluations (approximately by February 28), and submit their scores to the Chair, who has the final say on faculty evaluation scores. Chair will complete scoring by the end of March to insure that there is time for faculty members to adequately discuss the results of the evaluation and, if necessary, to appeal the Chair's decision.

Merit salary decisions are one but, it is stressed, not the only outcome of this evaluation. Multiple outcomes may result from the evaluation including suggestions for faculty development for improvement or renewal.

Faculty members are evaluated in terms of whether or not they have met the acceptable performance standards. To meet the acceptable performance standards, a faculty member must receive an overall good annual rating in each area of teaching/advising, scholarly and creative activity, and service.

2. Portfolio or Annual Report Preparation

To gather information on faculty performance in the areas of teaching/advising, scholarly and/or creative activity, and service, the Department utilizes a set of procedures for both collecting the necessary information and providing the documentation to the evaluator, as well as a set of forms for tabulating this information.

3. Portfolio or Annual Report Review and Evaluation

In the evaluation of faculty members, both a quantitative and a qualitative assessment is made of teaching/advising, scholarly and/or creative activity, and service activities. Included in this assessment is recognition of the interdisciplinary nature of the WGSS Department. In order to assess the accomplishments of faculty members during the prior calendar year, all faculty must submit the following for annual evaluation:

1. Updated curriculum vitae
2. Three self-evaluations (Research, Teaching, Service)
3. Syllabi for all WGSS (and WGSS cross-listed) courses taught
4. Student evaluations for all WGSS (and WGSS cross-listed) courses taught
5. Peer evaluations of teaching (to be done at least every three years)

Faculty need not submit publications or proof of service.

4. Feedback Process

The DEC is responsible for evaluating the annual evaluations and determining scores for each faculty member based on the faculty member’s own evaluation of their performance in the prior year. That is, each faculty member, using the self-evaluation forms, must justify which score they believe they deserve. It is the task of the DEC to evaluate whether the faculty have been accurate in their assessment. The DEC may agree with the faculty member or may think that the faculty member has over or under-scored, in which case the DEC can adjust the score up or down. The DEC submits the scores and brief explanations of them to the Chair.

When the evaluations are completed, the Chair will write a letter to each faculty member, conveying the scores calculated by the DEC and addressing the individual’s performance in terms of teaching/advising, scholarly or creative activity, service, and overall contribution to the Department. In most cases, it is expected that the Chair will follow the advice of the DEC in scoring. However, the Chair may not agree with the DEC’s evaluation and has discretion to raise or lower the scores generated by the DEC if s/he has cause to do so, for instance in a case where the Chair has particular knowledge about a faculty member’s performance to which the DEC was not privy.

The written evaluation may include an indication of suggested strategies for improvement or renewal. This letter must also provide the faculty member with an opportunity to discuss the evaluation in person with the Chair. The Chair may also meet with each faculty member to discuss the evaluation and to provide any further elaboration. This conference provides an opportunity for the Chair and faculty member to (1) review performance expectations and assignments for the following academic year, (2) progress toward tenure and promotion and tenure reviews, professional, institutional and individual goals, (3) discuss the relationship of individual goals to department or career goals, (4) identify faculty development opportunities supporting these goals, and (5) reassess career goals and identify specific performance issues and strategies for renewal, development or corrective action as appropriate.

The candidate may respond in writing to any negative evaluation; that response will be included in the candidate’s dossier. All evaluating documentation is maintained by the Chair in the faculty member’s personnel file as an on-going record of performance of academic responsibilities.

5. Outcomes of the Annual Performance Evaluation

The evaluation process of the Department of Women, Gender, & Sexuality Studies, seen in all its aspects, yields multiple outcomes. It acknowledges faculty accomplishments or shortcomings and makes them matters of record. It initiates discussions that influence the planning of both individual career development and unit evolution. It assists in the identification of opportunities for faculty improvement and renewal. It provides annual as well as cumulative data for merit salary recommendations, sabbatical leave and grant applications, tenure and promotion decisions, post-tenure review, and reassignments of responsibilities. And it provides documentation that may be used, at extremes, in support of either recognition or dismissal.

• Department and individual professional goals: When the faculty member meets with the Chair over the outcome of the current evaluation, a part of that discussion will focus on the long-range goals of the faculty member.
• Differential allocation of effort: Long-range planning may include a reallocation of the 40/40/20 formula for a future semester, year, or permanent arrangement for a tenured faculty member. It is in this discussion that the Chair outlines the short-range and long-range goals of the Department as well, helping to coordinate the needs of the faculty and the needs of the Department. This evaluation discussion occurs near the end of the Spring semester and is a good opportunity to discuss with faculty members the achievements and challenges of the Department.
• Personnel decisions: The outcomes of these evaluations are closely linked to such personnel decisions as promotion and/or tenure, but promotion and/or tenure are not automatically predicted by the annual faculty evaluations. The evaluations and the discussion between the Chair and faculty member are directed not only to the yearly performance, but the long-range planning for promotion to Associate Professor and Professor. In terms of faculty reassignment, because many of our faculty have joint appointments, any reassignment, as identified in the original Memorandum of Appointment Expectations, must be made in consultation with the chair or director of each unit and the Associate Dean for Administrative Affairs. This should be part of the discussion between the faculty member and Chair. Other aspects of reassignment, such as a tenured faculty member who wishes to devote more energy to teaching for a period of time and less to scholarship, would be a part of a discussion of differential allocation of effort.
• Merit salary decisions: One of the outcomes of annual evaluations is to serve as the basis of merit salary decisions, when there is merit pay to be disbursed. When the amount of money available for salary increases is made known, the Chair determines the distribution of merit money based on a qualitative assessment of the faculty member’s performance in the three areas of teaching/advising, scholarly and creative activity, and service over the past three years.

Procedures for developing performance improvement plans

If the chair ascertains that a faculty member’s performance seems to be failing to meet academic responsibilities, the administrator and the faculty member shall develop a written plan of methods to improve the faculty member’s performance. The plan may include appropriate provisions for faculty development, such as campus opportunities for continued renewal and development, or for other appropriate interventions. The chairperson may call upon the University administration for assistance in constructing such a plan, including provision for additional resources, where needed. A faculty member may reject any plan recommended to aid performance levels, but the faculty member must understand that a sustained overall failure to meet academic responsibilities is a basis for dismissal.

Procedures for addressing failure to meet academic responsibilities

In the event that a faculty member does not agree with the evaluation and is not satisfied with the follow-up meeting between the faculty member and Chair, the faculty member may appeal the decision. At the Department level, the faculty member is to write a letter to the Chair, outlining the disagreement and providing all necessary documentation to present the case for appeal adequately. This letter will become a part of the faculty member’s personnel file. The Chair is to respond to such an appeal in writing.

If a faculty member has been informed that his/her performance still fails to meet academic responsibilities, the faculty member may request a review by a faculty committee designated to hear such matters in the College. The review committee will issue a non-binding recommendation on the appropriateness of this conclusion to the unit administrator. The administrator may change the evaluation after receiving the committee’s decision, or may choose not to do so. In any event, the report of the committee will become a permanent part of the faculty member’s personnel file within the academic unit and shall be available to the faculty member.

Department chairs shall consult annually with the dean, and the dean shall consult annually with the Provost on the progress of any faculty member who fails within this category of failure to meet academic responsibilities.

Sustained failure to meet performance expectations

Based upon the judgment that there has been a sustained failure to meet academic responsibilities, the Dean may recommend to the Provost that a tenured faculty member be dismissed. In making this determination, the Dean shall consider the nature of the failure to meet academic responsibilities, the reason or reasons for this failure, the number of years that the faculty member has failed to meet academic responsibilities, the level of discernible improvement in the faculty member’s performance after being notified of any failure in performance, and the extent to which the faculty member has complied with the terms of any plan developed to improve the faculty member’s performance. The Provost will review the case and, if the Provost agrees with the Dean’s recommendation, the Provost will recommend to the Chancellor that the faculty member be dismissed. If the Chancellor agrees and recommends dismissal, this recommendation will go to the Faculty Rights Board.

Should any recommendation to dismiss be brought against a tenured faculty member based exclusively or in part on grounds of sustained failure to meet academic responsibilities, both the report(s) of the review committee(s), the annual written evaluation(s) of the unit administrator concerning the faculty member, any outside evaluations, and any germane written response by the faculty member to the charges shall be made available to the Faculty Rights Board.

6. Faculty Development Initiatives

One of the most important aspects of faculty development is the mentoring of untenured faculty members. These evaluations help the Department keep in close communication with the progress of its faculty. They help recognize both the achievements of new faculty as well as areas that may need some work in order to assist new faculty to excel in all three areas of evaluation. In terms of faculty renewal or improvement, these evaluations can help the evaluator intervene early in situations where faculty members have difficulties, such as ineffective teaching or inactive research programs. Through discussion, the Chair can communicate the needs of the Department as well as offer helpful suggestions to the faculty member (e.g., how to apply for grants for the improvement of teaching, information on paper presentations, help to attend conferences, assistance in the application process for research scholarships and grants, a discussion of temporary alteration of the 40/40/20 formula).

Development opportunities include but are not limited to:

• Opportunity to sit in on classes conducted by master teachers both within and outside the department
• Opportunity to examine syllabi and examinations of master teachers both within and without the department and to discuss effective teaching methods with them
• Opportunity to attend workshops on teaching effectiveness, research methods, and grantsmanship
• Support for applying for external funding or for Hall Center or Keeler Fellowships or other intra- University support
• Encouragement to participate in ongoing interdisciplinary faculty seminars

New faculty mentoring

To further assist and support new faculty members, the Department has a mentoring system that links a new faculty member with a tenured faculty member from the core WGSS faculty. This mentor assists the new faculty member in understanding the mission, requirements, and standards of teaching, research, and service excellence of the Department and the University, as well as feedback regarding their career progress toward promotion to associate professor.

Research Intensive Semesters (RIS): CLAS offers all junior faculty members in good standing a reduced teaching responsibility at some point during the faculty member’s pre-tenure employment. Faculty members will be released from classroom teaching duties for up to one semester, depending upon the relevant departmental teaching expectations, and will be expected to concentrate on research intensive activities. Faculty members are eligible for a research intensive semester assignment up to and including the spring semester before their publication dossiers are sent out to external reviewers in June, with the latest possible Research Intensive Semester (RIS) assignment typically being the second semester of the fifth year. Faculty members in good standing who have stopped their tenure clock remain eligible for a RIS assignment. The actual decision of which year/semester the individual is assigned a research intensive semester will be made in consultation with the department chair. Note that paid leaves and fellowships do not take the place of a RIS. Once the chair approves the RIS for the junior faculty member, the details concerning the RIS should be confirmed to the faculty member in writing and documented in their personnel file. The chair also provides a copy of this authorization to the College Dean’s Office so that RIS data can be tracked. Faculty members who are granted a RIS are expected to continue to meet their usual duties regarding departmental advising and other service activities.

Mentoring Oversight and Incentives: The Chair will provide routine oversight of the mentoring program. Grounds for dissolution of the arrangement can include dissatisfaction on the part of either the mentor or mentee, as well as concerns by the Chair that the interaction is not productive. Progress in all performance areas—teaching/advising, research, and service—should be monitored on a regular basis. Once a year, in conjunction with the annual performance evaluation, junior faculty members should discuss with their mentors progress on their research and teaching goals in detail. More long-term assessments will focus on mentee productivity and one’s success in achieving promotion to full professor.

See the Center for Faculty Development and Mentoring for information about additional faculty development opportunities.

Appendices

Appendix A – Student Evaluation of Teaching

Appendix B – Annual Report Self-Evaluations

Appendix C – Annual Report Evaluation Scale

Appendix D – Peer Evaluation of Teaching

Appendix A – Student Evaluation of Teaching

Instrument(s) for student evaluation of teaching; University’s Student Survey of Teaching Form. In addition, the department utilizes a “comment sheet.” The department has voted to use these comments in the evaluation process.

Appendix B – Annual Report Self-Evaluations

Annual Report Self-Evaluation Form 1: Research                    Year:

Name:                    Allocation of Effort:                    Percent appointment in WGSS:

Please consult the Guidelines for Self-Evaluations and highlight in bold one and only one of the following rankings that you believe best represents your research performance for the calendar year:

     Excellent          Very Good          Good          Marginal          Poor

Please explain your choice using the remainder of this page and 12-point font.

Annual Report Self-Evaluation Form 2: Teaching                    Year:

Name:                    Allocation of Effort:                    Percent appointment in WGSS:

Please consult the Guidelines for Self-Evaluations and highlight in bold one and only one of the following rankings that you believe best represents your teaching performance for the calendar year:

     Excellent          Very Good          Good          Marginal          Poor

Please explain your choice using the remainder of this page and 12-point font.

Annual Report Self-Evaluation Form 3: Service                    Year:

Name:                    Allocation of Effort:                    Percent appointment in WGSS:

Please consult the Guidelines for Self-Evaluations and highlight in bold one and only one of the following rankings that you believe best represents your service performance for the calendar year:

     Excellent          Very Good          Good          Marginal          Poor

Please explain your choice using the remainder of this page and 12-point font.

Appendix C – Annual Report Evaluation Scale

Research Categories

Excellent (4)	Ongoing field/archival research, data collection Plus one of the following: Publication of one peer-reviewed book Publication of three peer-reviewed articles/book chapters Award for scholarship Winning of major external fellowship
Very Good (3)	Ongoing field/archival research, data collection Plus one of the following: Publication of one or two peer-reviewed articles/book chapters Demonstrable impact (major review of book, citations of previously published scholarship, translations, second edition, invited lectures on research, other demonstrable impact of scholarship) Book contract received Winning of major University grant
Good (2)	Ongoing field/archival research, data collection Plus one of the following: Submission of article for peer review Submission of grant applications Demonstrable progress on a large project Presenting scholarship at academic conferences
Marginal (1)	Ongoing field/archival research, data collection Only minor publications (book reviews, encyclopedia entries, etc.)
Poor (0)	No evidence of research activity through conferences, grants, data collection, or publications

Teaching Categories

Excellent (4)	Teaches normal load of classes per contract; syllabi demonstrate that course goals are clear; class content is current and appropriate for course; student evaluation ratings are consistently good; evidence of undergraduate and graduate advising commensurate with rank. Evidence of evaluating, revising, or restructuring syllabi. • Evidence of actively engaging in establishing anti-racist, anti-homophobic, anti-transphobic, and/or feminist practices in the classroom and curriculum. Plus one of the following: Teaching award Evidence of exceptional syllabus/curriculum revision in service of Department or University objectives Leadership role in teaching on campus or in Department Teaches additional core course at Department request Evidence of exceptional quality and time commitment in the advising of graduate and undergraduate students Develops a brand new course Evidence of exceptional quality and time commitment to initiatives promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion
Very Good (3)	Teaches normal load of classes per contract; syllabi demonstrate that course goals are clear; class content is current and appropriate for course; student evaluation ratings are consistently good; evidence of undergraduate and graduate advising commensurate with rank. Evidence of evaluating, revising, or restructuring syllabi. Evidence of actively engaging in establishing anti-racist, anti-homophobic, anti-transphobic, and/or feminist practices in the classroom and curriculum. Plus one of the following: Above average quality or time commitment in advising of undergraduate or graduate students. Involvement in university-wide teaching committees or workshops. Taking on a new course prep Evidence of above average quality or time commitment to initiatives promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion
Good (2)	Teaches normal load of classes per contract; syllabi demonstrate that course goals are clear; class content is current and appropriate for course; student evaluation ratings are consistently good; evidence of undergraduate and graduate advising commensurate with rank. Evidence of evaluating, revising, or restructuring syllabi. Evidence of actively engaging in establishing anti-racist, anti-homophobic, anti-transphobic, and/or feminist practices in the classroom and curriculum.
Marginal (1)	Teaches normal load of classes per contract, but learning outcomes are not clear; student evaluations demonstrate consistent patterns of complaint; demonstrates need for improvement.
Poor (0)	May teach normal load of classes but syllabi and course goals are unclear; class content is not updated or appropriate for courses; student evaluations consistently rank in the lower half of the scale; little advising of undergraduate or graduate students; unsatisfactory peer teaching evaluations.

Service Categories

Excellent (4)	Fulfills normal Department service roles (attends meetings, mentors one GTA, sits on one Department committee per .50 FTE in Department) Fulfills normal service outside University commensurate with rank, (examples include: reviews book manuscripts/proposals/articles/grant applications; performs tenure & promotion reviews; public talks, presentations, and collaborations; sits on committees (including editorial boards) in scholarly organizations, etc. And fulfills one of the following: Additional service leadership role within the University, (examples include: College or University committee, search committee in other Departments/programs, leadership roles in Centers) Effectively undertakes one leadership role in Department (DUS, DGS); officer in professional organization; journal editorship; other service leadership role with high workload. Recognized with an award for service
Very Good (3)	Fulfills normal Department service roles (attends meetings, mentors one GTA, sits on one Department committee per .50 FTE in Department) Fulfills normal service outside University commensurate with rank, (examples include: reviews book manuscripts/proposals/articles/grant applications; performs tenure & promotion reviews; public talks, presentations, and collaborations; sits on committees (including editorial boards) in scholarly organizations, etc. One substantial service commitment in University and one outside University.
Good (2)	Fulfills normal Department service roles (attends meetings, mentors one GTA, sits on one Department committee per .50 FTE in Department) Fulfills normal service outside University commensurate with rank: reviews book manuscripts/proposals/articles/grant applications; performs tenure & promotion reviews; sits on committees (including editorial boards) in scholarly organizations, etc. One substantial service commitment in University or one outside University.
Marginal (1)	Marginal fulfillment of normal Department service roles (does not routinely attend meetings, does not mentor GTA, lackluster service on Department committee) Little engagement with field via review of articles, manuscripts, promotion and tenure files, sitting on committees in scholarly organizations, etc. No service commitments outside Department
Poor (0)	Does not perform service.

These requirements are the minimum service requirements to achieve each level. We anticipate that faculty will also perform service in ways that we appreciate but that do not factor directly into these rankings. Examples of such service might include: giving public talks to community groups; community service; etc.

If faculty believe that a service role outside of what is listed here is equivalent to a role that is recognized in this rubric, they should feel free to demonstrate how that service meets the requirements for any of the levels.

Appendix D – Peer Evaluation of Teaching

Peer review of teaching should take place for faculty members at each stage of their teaching career. Faculty members should select a colleague within the Department. Assistant Professors should have peer evaluations done at least twice before the tenure and/or promotion decision, and, if possible, one of these evaluations should be done prior to their progress toward tenure review. Associate Professors should also have peer evaluations done at least twice before promotion to Professor or every three years; Professors should have peer evaluations done at least every three years. Included in the peer evaluation should be: one or more class visitations and review of syllabi and instructional materials such as exams and paper assignments. The evaluation should be written and given to the Chair of the Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Department.