PRINT DISCLAIMER: Official version of this document is accessible in the online policy library at https://policyoffice.ku.edu/. Printed copies may not reflect the most recent updates.
DOCUMENT TYPE:
Procedure
PURPOSE:
To define the annual faculty evaluation procedure for School of Music Faculty.
APPLIES TO:
All full-time Faculty in the School of Music.
CAMPUS:
Lawrence
PROCEDURE STATEMENT:
Overview
Annual faculty evaluation is the regular review process for assessing the work and professional accomplishments of faculty members. Results of annual faculty evaluations are also used to inform decisions regarding merit-based salary increases. Each full-time faculty member will submit a portfolio of prescribed materials to the Dean’s Executive Assistant on the announced date each January. The Faculty Evaluation Committee will conduct the review and provide advice, services, and counsel to the appropriate Department Chair, who is responsible for completing the evaluation.
The Faculty Code of Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct ensures that all faculty have the right to impartial treatment in the application of policies and procedures for the evaluation of the performance of their responsibilities, including the right to participate in that evaluation process.
Faculty Evaluation Committee
The Faculty Evaluation Committee is comprised in accordance with the School of Music Bylaws.
Annual Evaluation Portfolio
All faculty members shall prepare an Annual Evaluation Portfolio, as prescribed by the School of Music. The parts of this portfolio include:
- Annual Faculty Report Form. All relevant achievements should be duly documented in this form, as it is the single most important document for the annual faculty evaluation process.
- Current CV.
- Student Course Evaluations. The complete set of a faculty member’s evaluations should be submitted, including both the quantitative and qualitative responses.
- Peer Teaching Observation Assessments, if required.
- Other Supporting Materials (optional). Faculty members may submit electronic copies of miscellaneous documents that they feel should be considered in the evaluation process.
Standards for Acceptable Performance
- The faculty member must be teaching an appropriate load, according to the faculty member’s allocation of effort, the Faculty Teaching Load Policy, and the Faculty Evaluation Policy.
- The faculty member must be doing research/creative work that advances them toward a national and/or international reputation, according to disciplinary expectations. This work may take any of the forms listed in the section of the Faculty Evaluation Policy relevant to the faculty member’s area.
- The faculty member must be doing an appropriate level of service for their allocation of effort.
Evaluation Report
The Faculty Evaluation Committee will prepare each faculty member’s evaluation report. The report is reviewed by each faculty member’s Department Chair, who then submits it to the faculty member. After the faculty member responds, the Department Chair will complete the evaluation using the process specified by the Office of Human Resources.
The Committee and Department Chair will base the evaluation of each faculty member on the criteria defined in the School of Music Faculty Evaluation Policy. The evaluation report will include a single assessment rating for each portion of the faculty member’s allocation of effort (Teaching, Research, and Service), according to the following scale:
Failure to Submit Required Materials.
If the Annual Evaluation Portfolio is missing a required component, the chair of the committee will contact the faculty member, who must produce the missing components within seven calendar days. Failure to produce any required component of the Annual Evaluation Portfolio will result in a “0” rating for the appropriate portion of the faculty member’s effort.
Needs Improvement.
The faculty member’s work in the previous year did not meet the Standards for Acceptable Performance.
Meets Expectations.
The faculty member’s work in the previous year meets the Standards for Acceptable Performance.
The evaluation of each portion of a faculty member’s allocation of effort shall consider, on balance, both the quantity and the quality of the work from the previous year. To this end, the Faculty Evaluation Committee and Department Chair may supplement each rating with a summary that highlights recommendations and/or commendations.
Appeals Process
After receiving the evaluation report from their Department Chair, a faculty member has the right to appeal their evaluation before it is submitted to the Office of Human Resources. Appeals must be made in writing and submitted within seven calendar days to the Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs. Appeals must provide evidence that demonstrates that the evaluation was either unfair or based on incomplete information.
Appeals follow a two-step process:
- The Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs will first send the written appeal back to the Faculty Evaluation Committee and the Department Chair, who will jointly consider the appeal. Within two weeks, the Department Chair will submit the decision to the Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs; the Committee and the Department Chair may choose to include written clarification for this decision, though this is not required. The Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs will then communicate the decision to the faculty member, who will either accept the decision or advance the appeal.
- If the faculty member advances the appeal, the Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs will appoint a three-person judicial committee to consider the appeal. The judicial committee members shall be tenured, disinterested music faculty members who have not had previous involvement in the annual review process that year. The committee will determine the final numeric rating(s) for the appealing faculty member by using the faculty member’s written appeal, Annual Evaluation Report, and any written commentary from the Faculty Evaluation Committee and the Department Chair. The judicial committee will submit to the Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs its findings, including the final rating(s) and any comments it determines to be appropriate. The Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs will deliver the findings of the judicial committee to the appealing faculty member, who will either accept the findings or advance the appeal to the University Office of Faculty Affairs.
Evaluation Outcomes
Ratings of Meets Expectations require no special action. Ratings of Did Not Submit or Needs Improvement require a faculty improvement plan.
In certain cases, the Faculty Evaluation Committee may recommend adjusting the faculty member’s allocation of effort. Such recommendations must be based on an analysis of the faculty member’s work in comparison to other faculty members with similar specializations. Issues that might justify such a recommendation include: heaviness of teaching load, overall quantity of research productivity, and overall quantity of service obligations. This analysis will identify one of three comparative levels for each category: significantly higher/more than the median, at or about the median, or significantly lower than median for all faculty with similar specializations.
The Faculty Evaluation Committee will identify any achievements that should be considered monumental or in some other way extraordinary. Identifying such achievements should be unusual and so will allow for the recognition of remarkable achievements that significantly contribute to the reputation of the faculty member, the department, the School, and the University. To this end, the Faculty Evaluation Committee will recommend to the Dean a shortlist of 5–7 names for each faculty award distributed by the School of Music.
CONTACT:
Dean, School of Music
Paul Popiel, Dean
785-864-3421
ppopiel@ku.edu
RESPONSIBLE UNIT:
School of Music
APPROVED BY:
Dean, School of Music
APPROVAL DATE:
03/26/2026
EFFECTIVE DATE:
06/01/2026
REVIEW CYCLE:
1 year
CHANGE HISTORY:
06/01/2026: New procedure published in the Policy Library.
TITLE:
School of Music Annual Faculty Review Procedure