Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Annual Review
Revised JULY 2009

The official polices for Annual Review are contained in the Faculty Handbook (FH), especially section IV.D.  These policies are themselves an application of the basic criteria for teaching, research, and service in the Rank and Tenure Policy Statement (RTPS), especially article 4.6. Faculty should be familiar with these documents, but the ordinary way for faculty to learn about “annual review’ is by talking to faculty colleagues, the Department Chair, or the Dean – rather than by reading FAQs. The purpose of the questions and answers below is to supplement these policies with practices that have developed in the College of Arts and Sciences as well as with advice from the current Dean. These questions and answers are subject to periodic revision, depending on changes in the Rank and Tenure Policy Statement and the Faculty Handbook as well as feedback from Chairs and other faculty.

                                                                                 Jim Buckley, Dean
                                                                 Loyola College of Arts and Sciences

1. What is Annual Review, and why is it important?
2. Where can I find the current Annual Review (“Annual Update”) form? 
3. When does Annual Review take place?
4. How does Annual Review take place?
5. How does a first-year faculty member participate in Annual Review?
6. By what criteria should the faculty member, tenured members of the department (in the case of probationary faculty members), Chair, and Dean review annual performance?
7. By what criteria are teaching, research, and service described as “below, meeting, exceeding expectations, or outstanding”?
8. How are teaching, research, and service “weighted”?
9. How should a faculty member fill out the Annual Update form?
10. Why does the Annual Update form ask for “complete citation for books, refereed journals, other journals . . .”?
11. Why does the current Annual Update form ask faculty to “attach reprints where applicable”?
12. How are sabbatical years reviewed?
13. How can a faculty member who has had an official family or medical leave expect to be evaluated by Chair and Dean during annual review?
14. If a faculty member has had a mid-term review the previous spring/summer, must he or she participate in the annual review process the next fall?
15. What is the relationship between the annual review and the mid-term review, or the review for tenure and promotion?
16. How are part-time or full-time non-tenure track faculty reviewed?
17. How long should the Annual Update be?
18. What should a faculty member do who disagrees with the Chair’s evaluation?  
19. What should the Dean and Chair expect of each other in their conduct of Annual Review?
20. How are the Chairs and Dean who perform Annual Review themselves reviewed?
21. Where did the Annual Update form come from, and how can it be changed?

1.  What is Annual Review, and why is it important?

     “Annual Review” is the process of evaluating (analyzing, appraising, assessing, and examining) faculty teaching, research, and service on a yearly basis.  The central goal of this review is to develop (acquire, maintain, deepen) the habits needed to be a teacher, scholar, and colleague committed “to the philosophy, values, and objectives of the College” (Rank and Tenure Policy Statement 4.6).   However, the Annual Review process also has more specific “summative” goals.  That is, Annual Reviews contribute cumulatively toward judgments of progress toward tenure (Rank and Tenure Policy Statement 4.2) and rank.  They are also used to distribute salary increments (Faculty Handbook IV. F.). Annual Review is important for all these reasons.  But the review should always be conducted in a way that serves our primary goods as teachers, scholars, and colleagues.

return to top

2.  Where can I find the current Annual Review (“Annual Update”) form?

     The current form used for Annual Review (called the “Annual Update” form) is available at: http://www.loyola.edu/academics/academicaffairs/documents/casAnnual.doc

return to top

3.  When does Annual Review take place?    

     Annual Review ordinarily takes place at the beginning of the academic year in September and concludes by the end of the first semester. Faculty turn in their Annual Updates to the Chair by the first Friday in September.  Annual Updates not submitted by this date may not receive the Chair's and department's full attention.  The Chair meets with faculty (as required, see below) between early September and mid-October – and meets with the Dean in October or November.  The Dean sends a letter to faculty confirming the summative evaluation by February 28.  Following the calendar in the RTPS (determined largely by the Loyola Conference Budget Committee’s schedule), the Vice-President for Academic Affairs sends the compensation letter to faculty by early April.           

     Some departments may wish to review probationary faculty at the end of the Spring semester, giving faculty the feedback to make any necessary adjustments by the next academic year.  The Sellinger School of Business and Management is currently experimenting with this process.  Some departments may also begin the process of Annual Review over the summer, including the meeting with the Dean, in order to complete the process before the beginning of the academic year, thus freeing up time in the Fall semester.  Departments who wish to adjust their Annual Review schedules for probationary and/or all tenure/tenure track faculty should consult with the Dean about setting up a schedule.

return to top

4.  How should Annual Review take place?

         Faculty Handbook IV.D. provides a description of the process.  After each academic year (usually at the beginning of September), each faculty member fills out and turns into the Chair the current “Annual Update” form, along with teaching evaluations (student and peer) as well as reprints of scholarly work.  The Chair then meets with the faculty “for a mutual exchange on the faculty member’s performance” (Faculty Handbook IV.D. 1.)  The “mutual exchange” should include candid conversation about both successes and concerns in the faculty member’s teaching and research and service as well as about plans for addressing any concerns. 

     In the case of probationary (tenure track) faculty, the Chair “secures recommendations from each of the tenured members of the department", (Faculty Handbook IV.D. 1.), usually at a meeting of the tenured faculty called for this explicit purpose.  Recommendations should indicate whether the candidate is making cumulative “progress toward tenure” (Rank and Tenure Policy Statement 4.2).  Tenure track faculty who have had a mid-term review the previous spring may have a modified annual review in the fall; see Faculty Handbook IV.E.  Chair letters on probationary faculty should always include a recommendation for or against reappointment.

return to top

5.  How does a first-year faculty member participate in Annual Review?    

     First year faculty ordinarily do not complete the Annual Update form, although the Department should provide appropriate mentoring in the process of Annual Review in preparation for full participation in the process after the first year.  However, the Chair and the tenured members of the Department must make a written recommendation to reappoint all non-tenured tenure-track faculty (Rank and Tenure Policy Statement 2.1), including first-year faculty, no earlier than the end of the first semester or the beginning of the second semester of the first year.  This recommendation will be based on the Chair’s judgment (having secured the judgments of other tenured faculty) about teaching, research, and service as evidenced in the first semester.

return to top

6.  By what criteria should the faculty member, Chair, and Dean review annual performance?

     The Rank and Tenure Policy Statement summarizes the basic criteria for successful teaching, scholarship, and service in its description of criteria for tenure, where a tenured faculty member “must first and foremost have displayed commitment to the philosophy, values, and objectives of the College” (Rank and Tenure Policy Statement 4.6).  These policies are complemented by the description of professional responsibilities in the Faculty Handbook on teaching, scholarship, and service (V.).  Finally, the Rank and Tenure Policy Statement stipulates that it “is the responsibility of each department to agree on instruments or criteria whereby the effectiveness of the members of that department can be judged” (Rank and Tenure Policy Statement 4.6).  All departments have their particular ways of evaluating themselves, written down and periodically revised; the Dean regularly encourages Chairs to review their own standards in the light of their aspirations as well as the standards of other departments.

return to top

7.  By what criteria are teaching, research, and service described as “below or meeting or exceeding expectations or outstanding”?

     These descriptions were invented in the 1990s, with the consent of the Faculty Compensation Committee.  In 1997 Departments were asked to determine criteria for these different rankings; departments have periodically revised their criteria, and the criteria are periodically discussed by the CAS Council of Department Chairs in order to promote consistency across departments.  

     Most departments treat these “summative” rankings as holistic judgments rather than judgments to be inferred from a single piece of evidence.  Thus, there need to be multiple sources of evidence for any judgment.  The key evaluation is peer-evaluation of teaching and research and service, although self-evaluation is also crucial and (in the case of teaching) student evaluation.  

      Departments should regularly reflect on the relationship between these evaluative descriptions (from “below expectations” to “outstanding”) and the requirement of the Rank and Tenure Policy Statement that candidates for tenure “show evidence of success in all three areas—teaching, research, service—but show especial strength in two of the three”(article 4.6).

return to top

8. How are teaching, research, and service “weighted”?

     For those who wish quantitative guidelines, the Faculty Handbook F.1. says that the “customary weighting” of teaching and research and service is “50% to teaching [6 courses/year], 30% to scholarship, and 20% to service” – but that these “weights” can vary by agreement with the Dean and Chair.  

If a faculty member uses the customary weights, how might their teaching and research and service be “weighted”?  Most Arts and Sciences faculty and Chairs rightly make qualitatively holistic rather than detailed quantitative judgments (e.g., “if teaching is weighted 50%, each course should be weighted 8.3%”).   But the following table might provide a rough frame for (or at least consideration in) such holistic judgments:

These figures would have to be modified if someone’s teaching and research and service are weighted differently.  All such frames or considerations may help in some circumstances, but they cannot replace the good professional judgment that is at the core of annual review, particularly as such review relates to tenure and promotion. 

return to top

9.  How should a faculty member fill out the Annual Update form?

     Because of the importance of the Annual Update form for Annual Review as well as tenure and promotion, faculty members are expected complete the form carefully and thoughtfully .  It will be read by the Chair and (in the case of probationary faculty) colleagues in the department, the Dean and perhaps eventually even by the Board on Rank and Tenure. 
 
     In filling out the section on teaching and research and service, faculty should keep in mind the College-wide as well as departmental criteria (see above).  It is helpful for faculty and Chairs to engage in annual reviews in the light of the broader strategic plan - particularly the relationship between academic excellence and institutional identity which is the heart of our strategic mission to become a classic Jesuit Catholic university of national standing. 

     Keep in mind that the “mutual exchange” between faculty and Chair will include candid conversation about both successes and concerns in the faculty member’s teaching and research and service as well as about plans for addressing any concerns.  In the Dean’s experience, the best Annual Updates are those that display this candor.

     The sections on teaching and research and service should use multiple quality indicators, particularly to make the case for an exceptional year.  Thus, the section on teaching should include not only student evaluations and more direct evidence of student learning as needed but also pertinent peer-evaluation, along with the faculty member’s personal reflection or self-evaluation.  Student evaluations “are taken into consideration as part of the overall evaluation of faculty performance” (Faculty Handbook VIII.N.), so faculty should attach summaries of student evaluation for courses taught during the last academic year, while keeping in mind our ongoing concern to develop multiple instruments for assessing teaching (e.g., the list of quality indicators of teaching in the Faculty Handbook IV.K.3.).

     In the section on research, faculty should include complete citations for peer reviewed work that appeared between July 1 and June 30 of the previous academic year Evidence of scholarly activities such as “copies of published papers and proceedings are submitted with the update form” (Faculty Handbook V.E.) – but see below for a qualification of this requirement.  The section on research should, of course, provide evidence of the quality of the research.  The Loyola Notre Dame Library collects faculty publications, and faculty are encouraged to send their publications to the Library archive.

     The section on service should indicate the depth as well as the breadth of the service (e.g., what sort of time and work was involved in being on a particular committee?).
 
     Faculty who spend all or part of the year on leave should provide a summary of their leave or sabbatical accomplishments which will enable Chair and Dean to evaluate the year or semester of the leave

      The Dean asks that Chairs submit faculty Annual Updates along with the Chair’s Annual Review letter electronically, when each is due.  This helps economize record-keeping in the Dean’s office.  Of course, supplementary materials such as student evaluations will still have to be submitted in hard-copy.

return to top

 10.Why does the Annual Update form ask for “complete citation for books, refereed journals, other journals . . .”?

     A “complete citation” is the standard scholarly citation format used in the faculty member’s field, and there is more than one format in some fields.  Faculty should consult with Chairs about the format the Chair uses for her or his departmental report on publications.  These citations need to be “complete” for at least two reasons.

     Citations should be complete because the Department needs a clear record of peer-reviewed publications (particularly in the case of probationary faculty).  Tenured faculty need access to copies of the peer-reviewed publications of probationary faculty in order to engage in review of such faculty for annual renewal and mid-term review.  The Chair needs have access to the recent peer-reviewed publications of all faculty the better to take account of longer-term research and writing agenda.

     If there is some doubt about what it means to call a book or essay or creative performance “peer-reviewed” beyond the description in the Rank and Tenure Policy Statement 4.6.b and the Faculty Handbook IV.K.4. (Evidence of Scholarly Activity), faculty should use the standard the Department would use in making a case to the Board on Rank and Tenure.

return to top

11. Why does the current Annual Update form ask faculty to “attach reprints where applicable”?

     Departments should have the recent peer-reviewed publications of all faculty on file, particularly non-tenured, tenure track faculty.  As mentioned in the previous question, tenured faculty should have ready access to peer-reviewed publications of non-tenured, tenure tack faculty; and the Chair should have access to the recent peer-reviewed publications of all faculty the better to take account of longer-term research and writing agenda.  Thus, attaching reprints of peer-reviewed publications is essential when Annual Updates are submitted to the Chair.

     It is, however, not necessary for the Chair to forward these publications to the Dean, except for special reasons.  The Dean’s office does not have room to store such publications, except in special circumstances.  Such “special circumstances” include: the publication of a particularly prestigious publication to which the Chair’s letter calls special attention; a disagreement between the Chair and a faculty member over the quality of a publication; or the request of a faculty member that a particular reprint be attached.  If a faculty member wishes the Dean to return such materials, this should be clearly indicated on the materials themselves.

return to top

12.  How are sabbatical years reviewed?

     Faculty who spend all or part of the year on sabbatical leave should attach a copy of the “leave report” they promised to do when they applied for their sabbatical.  The Dean currently thinks about sabbatical years in the following way.  First, it frequently takes a number of years to evaluate a sabbatical; the best time to evaluate a sabbatical year is probably in the year of the application for the -next- sabbatical rather than during Annual Review. 

     Second, in the year following a sabbatical, we are usually evaluating teaching and research and service for one semester and research for another semester. (For those interested in quantitative guidelines, a faculty member who usually weights teaching 50%, research 30%, and service 20% [Faculty Handbook IV.E.], will be evaluated for her or his sabbatical year as 25% teaching [one semester’s worth of teaching], 10% service [one semester’s service], and 65% research [15% of research one semester and 50% of another {i.e., 100% of the sabbatical semester =  50% of the entire year}] ).  The Chair’s evaluation of this scholarship should take account of (a) the scholarly productivity of the year in articles, books, and other publications and (b) the progress made on the sabbatical project as revealed in the sabbatical report and interview with the Chair.  This model can be adjusted to fit different circumstances (e.g., taking into account faculty who have a teaching rather than research sabbatical, or who participate in a department hiring while on sabbatical, or who have a year-long sabbatical).

return to top

13. How can a faculty member who has had an official family or medical leave expect to be evaluated by Chair and Dean during annual review?

     An “official family or medical leave” is subject to all the requirements of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA).  The provisions for applying for these leaves are described in the Faculty Handbook VII.B.5. (Family and Medical Leaves).  Presuming the Loyola Benefits Manager has approved such a leave, how should a faculty be prepared to be evaluated during the Annual Review after the year in which the leave is taken? And how should Chair and Dean evaluate such faculty?

     It might help to have read provisions of the FMLA to grip the issues at stake.  Consider these two sections of the Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division code 29, Part 825.    

Section 825.101-What is the purpose of the Act?

(a)      "FMLA is intended to allow employees to balance their work and family life by taking reasonable unpaid leave for medical reasons, birth or adoption of a child….The act is intended to balance the demands of the workplace with the needs of families, to promote the stability and economic security of families, and to promote the national interests in preserving family integrity…"

(b)      "The enactment of FMLA was predicated on two fundamental concepts-the needs of the American workforce, and the development of high-performance organizations.  Increasingly, America's children and elderly are dependent upon family members who must spend long hours at work.  When a family emergency arises, requiring workers to attend to seriously ill children or parents, or to newly born or adopted infants,…workers need reassurance that they will not be asked to choose between continuing their employment, and meeting their personal and family obligations or tending to vital needs at home."

Section 825.220-How are employees protected who request leave or otherwise assert FMLA rights?

(b) "Any violations of the act or of these regulations constitute interfering with, restraining, or denying the exercise of rights provided by the act. 'Interfering with' the exercise of any employee's rights would include not only refusing to authorize FMLA leave, but discouraging an employee from using such leave."

JB COMMENT: This No Discouragement rule means that an employee covered under FMLA would NOT be expected to perform work or other services related to employment during the time served under the leave – whether teaching, or research, or service.  Any such expectation might discourage an employee from taking the FMLA leave.

(c) "An employee is prohibited from discriminating against employees…who have used FMLA leave.  For example, if an employee on leave without pay would otherwise be entitled to full benefits (other than health benefits), the same benefits would be required to be provided to an employee on unpaid FMLA leave.  By the same token, employers cannot use the taking of FMLA leave as a negative factor in employment actions, such as hiring, promotions or disciplinary actions…" 

JB COMMENT: The No Negative Factor rule means that time lost due to an FMLA absence should not be a determining factor used in a performance review.  In the case of a faculty member who has an FMLA leave for one semester, a prudent rule of thumb is only to evaluate the one semester in which the faculty member works at Loyola.  Faculty and Chairs can discuss how to take into account research and service during the leave with the Dean and/or the Benefits Manager.

return to top

14. If a faculty member has had a mid-term review the previous spring/summer, must he or she participate in the annual review process the next fall?   

     Descriptions of the different types of affiliate (= non-tenure track) faculty are in the Faculty Handbook, Section IV (Faculty Status).  The calendar for hiring, evaluating, and renewing all faculty is published on the College of Arts and Sciences web site (under Information for Chairs).  Full-time, non-tenure track faculty should be reviewed yearly, usually in the fall, if the Chair is recommending renewal of the contract; the calendar and process should follow that of tenure-track faculty (see above), except that most full-time, non-tenure track faculty are ordinarily evaluated only for teaching (80%) and service (20%).  There are a variety of part-time faculty at Loyola.  Four-fifths faculty (formerly called “core” faculty) usually teaching 6 courses/year and doing appropriate service) and half-time faculty (4 courses/year) are given yearly contracts and should be reviewed yearly in late winter, the review submitted to the Dean along with the request for renewal of the position.   Per course faculty should be reviewed before a Chair recommends rehiring them.

return to top

15. What is the relationship between the annual review and the mid-term review, or the review for tenure and promotion?

     “As stipulated in the Section IV-E on mid-term review, ‘the annual review can be suitably abbreviated in the year in which the mid-term year occurs, as agreed to by the faculty member, the Chair (having consulted the department), and the Dean.” (Faculty Handbook IV.D.1.)  “Suitably abbreviated” suggests that annual review might include only any new material that has developed since the mid-term review was completed.  But much depends on the results of the mid-term review, so that all parties should come to some agreement on the extent the annual review will serve its purpose.

return to top

16.  How are part-time or full-time non-tenure track faculty reviewed?

     “The tenure process is a continuous one that begins with the initial appointment and includes the annual reviews, annual meetings with the Department Chair and Dean, and a meeting with the Vice President for Academic Affairs” during mid-term review (Faculty Handbook IVJ.4.) Thus, these reviews are distinct but inseparable, not least because the Rank and Tenure Policy Statement requires Chairs and Deans to meet annually with tenure-track faculty “[f]or the purpose of reviewing progress toward tenure” (4.2).  That is, a positive annual review is no guarantee of a positive mid-term review, or a positive recommendation for tenure and/or promotion.  However, there should be a reasonable level of consistency.  For example, if a department Chair or majority of tenured members or Dean agree that a faculty member “exceeded expectations”, the ordinary assumption would be that the faculty member is making reasonable “progress toward tenure” (RTPS 4.2) -- unless something to the contrary is explicitly stated.   

     When tenured members do not agree on recommendations, the Chair should clearly communicate the issues at stake to the tenure-track faculty member.  If the situation remains unclear, the tenure-track faculty member should speak with the Dean.  The Dean also should clarify any ambiguous issues in the Dean’s yearly written note to tenure-track faculty.

return to top

17.  How long should the Annual Update be?

     Length varies from the brief (1000 words) to the lengthy (2000 words).  Quantity is not quality, although quantity can sometimes be a good quality.  Much depends on how reflective the author is about teaching, research, service, and his or her contribution to the College’s mission and vision and core values.  But length also depends on audience.  How much reflection does a Chair or tenured colleagues (for non-tenured faculty) or the Dean expect?   It could be that an Update will be longer is one year, shorter in others. Conscientious annual updates can be helpful when faculty compile dossiers for mid-term review as well as tenure and promotion.

return to top

18.  What should a faculty member do who disagrees with the Chair’s evaluation?

    Faculty and Chairs are expected to engage in a “mutual exchange” during annual review, the Chair having consulted other tenured faculty in the case of non-tenured faculty; however, faculty “evaluations are ultimately the Chair’s decision” (Faculty Handbook VI.B.3.).  Faculty members and Chairs who disagree on the faculty member’s evaluation should clarify their disagreement during the “mutual exchange” required in the annual review.  Sometimes patient discussion dissipates disagreement at this stage.  If there continues to be a disagreement over the draft of the Chair’s letter, the faculty member and Chair should strive to arrive at a common formulation and resolution of the issue in the Chair’s letter.  If this does not succeed, the faculty member may turn in to the Chair and the Dean a rejoinder to the Chair’s letter; this will be attached to the Chair’s letter in the faculty member’s file.

return to top

19.  What should the Dean and Chair expect of each other in their conduct of Annual Review?

     The Dean and Chairs should expect each other to know and interpret in good faith the criteria of the Rank and Tenure Policy Statement, the Faculty Handbook, the Chair’s department and (where appropriate) other departments.  

     The Dean asks the Chairs to send him departmental Annual Updates at least one week before they meet.  The Dean expects the Chair to convey to the Dean the frank discussion of the faculty member’s successes as well as concerns over teaching and research and service. 

     The Chair can expect that the Dean has studied the Annual Updates and the Chair's letter when these have been sent to the Dean a week in advance.  The Chair can also expect that the Dean will respect the Chair’s concrete judgments as based on the criteria above; if Chair and Dean disagree, the Chair can expect a clear explanation that will be conveyed to the faculty member in a letter from the Dean.    

return to top

20.  How are the Chairs and Dean who perform Annual Review themselves reviewed?

   Faculty evaluate Chairs informally in a variety of ways, from private conversations with colleagues to department meetings.  Chairs (particularly those in larger and more complex departments) are encouraged to develop, in consultation with the department, more formal means of self-evaluation for their own personal use (e.g., using the nationally normed evaluation instrument at IDEA [www.idea.ksu.edu/Chair]).

     Chairs are also evaluated yearly by the Dean in the context of the fall annual review.  Each summer the Dean also meets with Chairs and writes a letter assessing Chair and departmental and programmatic accomplishments for the previous year and plans for the subsequent year. 

     The Dean also asks departments to conduct a review of Chairs who seek reappointment after their three year term.  Ordinarily the Chair reminds the Dean to appoint a senior faculty member to run the election (Faculty Handbook VI.B.7.).  The Dean also asks this senior member to offer a cumulative review of the Chair's teaching and research and service as Chair, providing the detailed assessment of teaching and research which only a colleague in the same field can provide.  The evaluation of the Chair’s performance should also include a survey of the department using an evaluation form approved by department and Dean or a nationally normed Chair evaluation form.  Individual Chairs should discuss with the Dean and department how best to anticipate this evaluation; this discussion should be done in timely fashion – for example, in a way that allow any evaluation instrument (e.g., a survey of the department) to be approved by Chair, department, and Dean.

return to top

21.  Where did the Annual Update form come from, and how can it be changed?

     The College of Arts and Sciences Annual Update form was originally modeled on the forms used for tenure and promotion. (Annual Update forms are available at Loyola.edu, Academic Affairs, Information for Faculty.)  It is important that there is basic continuity between these forms so it is clear that cumulative annual review feeds into tenure and promotion decisions.  Changes to the College of Arts and Sciences Annual Update form that break (or appear to break) this basic continuity should be approved by the Academic Senate, ordinarily as recommended by the Faculty Evaluation Committee.  However, the College of Arts and Sciences Council of Department Chairs has made minor changes to the Annual Update form consistent with the Deans' and Chairs' authority for the day-to-day running of their departments.  Minor changes to the form were last made at the Council of Department Chairs in spring 2003.  Even such "minor" changes can, of course, be appealed to the Academic Senate. 

return to top