• Home
  • School of Business, Non-Tenure Track Annual Faculty Evaluations

School of Business, Non-Tenure Track Annual Faculty Evaluations


To document the process by which the School of Business conducts annual evaluations of faculty members.

Applies to: 

All full-time, non-tenure-track faculty at The University of Kansas School of Business.

Policy Statement: 

Evaluation Process:

All full-time, non-tenure-track faculty will be evaluated annually by the area director. The area director’s evaluations will be reviewed for consistency within the area and within the School by a committee consisting of all area directors and the executive associate dean. Non-tenure-track faculty will be evaluated on their teaching and services contributions.

Early each spring semester, faculty will submit their Faculty Performance Data Sheet (FPDS) along with a teaching and service rubric. The FPDS lists the faculty teaching and service contributions over the evaluation period. The teaching and service rubrics provide a list of desired, noteworthy, and exemplary activities. Faculty members indicate which activities apply to them during the evaluation period and provide greater detail about each activity on the FPDS. The purpose of each rubric is to provide clarity on the criteria used to evaluate faculty.

In evaluating a faculty member, the area director will make qualitative and quantitative assessments. For example, when assessing teaching, the area director will not only consider the total number of classes and preps but other factors such as (1) whether the faculty member teaches in a graduate program or undergraduate program; (2) whether the faculty member teaches a required course or an elective; (3) the course GPA relative to prior or concurrent sections; (4) student evaluations; (5) student feedback; (6) course materials; (7) use of technology in the classroom; (8) significant revisions/updates to course curriculum and (9) peer teaching observations, if any. The teaching and service rubrics provide evidence of good teaching and service but do not represent a simple checklist or a comprehensive list.

Rating Scale

The quantity and quality of faculty contributions during the evaluation period will be ranked on a 7-point scale. Faculty will receive separate scores for teaching and service that ultimately will be combined into a weighted overall evaluation score. The 7-point scale will correspond to the following descriptions:

7 – Extraordinary Quality and Quantity

6 – High Quality and Quantity

5 – High Quality and Average Quantity or vice versa

4 – Average Quality and Quantity

3 – Below Average Quality or Quantity

2 – Below Average Quality and Quantity

1- Absence of any meaningful contributions

In general, a rating of 7 is reserved for cases where a faculty member has extraordinary performance in teaching or service such as receiving a high-level award reflecting contribution across multiple years.

Performance Weighting

The ratings will be weighted as 80% on teaching and 20% on service. Contribution of non- tenure-track faculty with administrative responsibilities will be weighted on three dimensions – teaching, service and administration. For example, a non-tenure-track faculty member with a 0.5 administrative contract would weight his/her contributions as follows: 50% administrative; 40% teaching; and 10% service.

Faculty Evaluations

Faculty members will receive an overall score for their annual evaluation that weights their individual scores according to the matrix above. For example, a non-tenure-track faculty member with no administrative responsibility who receives a 6 on teaching and 5 on service would receive an overall rating of 5.8 calculated as follows: (6 x 0.8) + (5 x 0.2) = 5.8. The rating system substantially enhances the transparency of KU’s mandatory faculty evaluation process and facilitates efficient mapping with evaluation outcomes (e.g., resource allocation, teaching assignments, course scheduling, etc.)

Weighted Ratings

7 represents extraordinary performance

6 represents a high level of performance that is sustainable but that requires peak performance.

5 indicates that the faculty member is performing well.

4 indicates that the faculty member is meeting expectations.

3 indicates that the faculty member is underperforming in terms of quality or quantity.

2 indicates severe underperformance.

1 indicates a lack of performance.


Associate Dean, Susan Scholz
School of Buisness

Approved by: 
Faculty Assembly
Approved on: 
Friday, February 8, 2019
Effective on: 
Friday, February 8, 2019
Review Cycle: 
Annual (As Needed)
Annual evaluation, school of business, non-tenure track
Change History: 

04/14/2023: Added new policy to Policy Library.
02/08/2019: Approved.

School/College Policy Categories: 
Promotion & Tenure
Additional Policies

Can't Find What You're Looking For?
Policy Library Search
KU Today
One of 34 U.S. public institutions in the prestigious Association of American Universities
Nearly $290 million in financial aid annually
44 nationally ranked graduate programs.
—U.S. News & World Report
Top 50 nationwide for size of library collection.
23rd nationwide for service to veterans —"Best for Vets," Military Times