School of Social Welfare Workload Guidelines, Faculty Evaluation Plan, and Merit Guidelines

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:

Policy

PURPOSE:

The policy addresses the assessment of merit for tenure-track faculty and research faculty with distinctions relevant to their roles within the School.  

APPLIES TO:

School of Social Welfare tenure-track faculty and research faculty.

CAMPUS:

Edwards, Lawrence

POLICY STATEMENT:

The University requires individual units to conduct annual faculty evaluations for tenure-track and tenured faculty members. The Dean is responsible for conducting annual evaluations within the School and making determinations about distributing merit (i.e., financial payment) when such funds are available from the University. To inform the faculty evaluation and in the case of distributing merit, the School uses a points-based system as outlined below. 

The Dean is responsible for sharing updates and guidance from university administration that impact the faculty evaluation process and guidelines before the review. [Please note: Union negotiations may impact these guidelines in unexpected ways. These guidelines will be adjusted as needed to account for such impacts.]

FACULTY EVALUATION

Points are assessed per calendar year based on faculty workload categories (i.e., teaching, scholarship, and service), and Dean’s discretionary points. For the purpose of annual evaluation, points will be assessed on an annual calendar year basis. 

The basis for assessment should be each faculty member’s workload, which is prospectively negotiated with the Dean. Faculty who complete a standard workload (40% teaching, 40% scholarship, 20% service) in a given calendar year as defined by the Workload and Governance policies (i.e., teaching 4 courses, creating 2 scholarly products, and serving on 1 program committee and professional advising) will receive 40 points for teaching, 40 points for scholarship, and 20 points for service.

NOTES AND EXCEPTIONS

Work completed on an overload/contractual payment (e.g., teaching summer courses, constructing a Canvas template, paid presentations) will be considered for merit points. [Although such work will be considered for points, any work completed off contract (e.g., courses taught during the summer) does not count toward workload expectations.]

New faculty exception is given (due to starting in fall semester) for the first and second calendar years. In their first two years, new faculty will be assigned a minimum rating of Good in all categories. New faculty are still expected to meet with the Dean for annual faculty evaluations to assess their capacity to meet expected workload.

• This faculty evaluation is considered separate from any reviews completed by the Promotion, Retention, and Tenure (PRT) committee. For specifics on PRT reviews, reference the PRT policy. Given these are separate policies/guidelines, there is no expectation that faculty evaluation ratings conform with PRT ratings.

Individual faculty with adjusted workloads will be evaluated based on their defined workload. For example, an individual faculty with external funding may have an adjusted workload of 50% research, 30% teaching, and 20% service. This individual would be expected to receive 50 points in scholarship, 30 points in teaching, and 20 points in service to receive a minimum rating of Good across all categories.

MERIT

Points are assessed per calendar year based on faculty workload categories (i.e., teaching, scholarship, and service), and Dean’s discretionary points. For the purpose of merit distribution (when such merit-identified funds are available), points will be averaged over the past three calendar years.

When merit-identified funds are available from the University, how those funds will be distributed will be determined in AY 2024-2025.

TEACHING

As part of the annual faculty evaluation, the Dean must rate individual faculty using the following categories: Excellent, Very Good, Good, Marginal, Poor. In the category of Teaching (and assuming a typical workload of 40%), the following point ranges will inform the annual faculty evaluation:

• >60 points: Excellent
• 50-60 points: Very Good
• 40-50 points: Good
• 30-40 points: Marginal
• <30 points: Poor

Please note: Although end-of-semester teaching evaluations are not currently being used to determine points below, the Dean may be required by the university to use them during the faculty evaluation process as a measure of teaching effectiveness. The Dean will share updates and guidance from the university administration that impact the faculty evaluation process as it relates to the use of end-of-semester teaching evaluations.

Teaching includes the following types of contributions: 

• Teaching a course = 10 points per course 
• Preparing to teach a course for first time = 5 points per course
• Preparing to teach a course in a new modality (e.g., moving from in person to Jayhawk Global) = 5 points per course 
• Receiving a course release or course buy-out = 4 points per course. 
• Instructor of record for Readings & Investigations (total, not also points for “Preparing to teach a course for first time”) = 5 points per course 
• Doctoral (PhD and DSW) activities 
• Chair, dissertation committee = 5 points; (per semester) 
• Methodologist on dissertation committee = 5 points (per semester) 
• Chair of Qualifying Committee = 5points (per semester) 
• Members of qualifying committee = 2 points (points awarded in year of completion only) 
• Member of dissertation committee (whether inside or outside the School) = 5 points (points awarded in year of completion only) 
• Chair of Capstone Committee = 5 points (per semester) 
• Member of Capstone Committee = 5 points (points awarded in year of completion only) 
• Mentoring activities (per mentee/per semester) 
• Pre-Tenured Faculty = 2.5 points 
• Lecturer (Adjunct Instructors) = 1.25 points 
• GTAs = 2.5 points
• GRAs = 2.5 points
• Student scholars (e.g., undergraduate research scholars, Toni Johnson Center scholars, and MSW research scholars, PhD Teaching Apprentices, and First Year Guide Mentees) = 1.25 points 
• Group of students (per group/per semester) = 1.25 points

SCHOLARSHIP

As part of the annual faculty evaluation, the Dean must rate individual faculty using the following categories: Excellent, Very Good, Good, Marginal, Poor. In the category of Scholarship (and assuming a typical workload of 40%), the following point ranges will inform the annual faculty evaluation:

• >60 points: Excellent
• 50-60 points: Very Good
• 40-50 points: Good
• 30-40 points: Marginal
• <30 points: Poor

Scholarship includes the following types of contributions:

• Peer-reviewed article, counted only once in year of acceptance or publication = 20 points
• Book chapter, counted in year publisher accepts final manuscript = 20 points
• Book:
• Authored by faculty member (i.e., not edited) and published by scholarly publishing company, counted in year of publisher acceptance of final manuscript = faculty member can make the case for how many points each chapter is worth, not to exceed 20 points per chapter. 
• Edited by faculty member and published by scholarly publishing company, counted in year of publisher acceptance of final manuscript = faculty member can make the case for how many points each chapter is worth, not to exceed 10 points per chapter. 
• Presentations, that are a part scholarship dissemination (e.g., conference, webinar, podcast): 
• May count toward scholarship or service, counted only once =2.5 points
• Public testimony: 
• May count toward scholarship or service, counted only once = 2.5 points
• Other scholarly products (e.g., report, implementation plan, program evaluation) = faculty member can make the case for how many points each product is worth, not to exceed 15 points per product

Grant and contract activities (regardless of internal/external) include the following (note: points per total award amount each year):

• Submitting a proposal, unfunded or funded
• Internal proposal = 2.5 points the year of submission
• External proposal = 5 points the year of submission
• Funding up to 25K = 10 points each year the award is active
• Funding over 25K and up to 50K = 20 points each year the award is active
• Funding over 50K and up to 100K = 30 points each year the award is active
• Above 100K, 10 points for each additional 100K of funding each year the award is active

The following activities and associated points are in addition to the above:

• Authorship order = 2.5 points for first author, 1.25 points for second author
• Student authorship = 1.25 points per student
• Grant/contract role = 2.5 points for PI role, 1.25 for Co-PI role

SERVICE

As part of the annual faculty evaluation, the Dean must rate individual faculty using the following categories: Excellent, Very Good, Good, Marginal, Poor. In the category of Service (and assuming a typical workload of 20%), the following point ranges will inform the annual faculty evaluation:

• >30 points: Excellent
• 25-30 points: Very Good
• 20-25 points: Good
• 15-20 points: Marginal
• <15 points: Poor

Services includes the following types of contributions: 

• School/University:
• Membership on a School committee, whether elected or appointed = 10 points per committee
• Membership on a program-level curriculum committee (BSW, MSW, PhD, DSW) = 10 points per committee
• Membership on University committee and other bodies = 10 points per committee
• Local/State/Regional/National/International (this refers to scope as opposed to location):
• Local/state/regional service (e.g., serving on agency board or community coalition, etc.) = 2.5 points per service activity
• National (editorial boards for journals, journal reviews, grant reviews, etc.) = 2.5 points per service activity
• International (editorial boards for journals, journal reviews, grant reviews, etc.) = 2.5 points per service activity
• Presentations (e.g., conference, webinar, podcast): 
• May count toward scholarship or service, counted only once = 2.5 points
• Public testimony:
• May count toward scholarship or service, counted only once = 2.5 points
• Significant, exceptionally time-consuming service = faculty member can make the case for how many points the service activity is worth, not to exceed 5 points per activity
• Assigned professional advising = 10 points
• Special assignments made by the Dean = to be determined by Dean and faculty member, not to exceed 10points. 

ADMINISTRATION

As part of the annual faculty evaluation, the Dean must rate individual faculty using the following categories: Excellent, Very Good, Good, Marginal, Poor. In the category Administration, ratings are assigned at the Dean’s discretion.

Tasks and responsibilities associated with administrative roles (e.g., associate deans, program directors) are unique to each position and also associated with adjustments to workload. Individual faculty with adjusted workloads will be evaluated based on their defined workload. For example, an individual faculty with an administrative role may have an adjusted workload of 50% administration, and 50% divided between teaching, scholarship, and service. This individual would be expected to receive 50 points in administration and 50 points respectively distributed across teaching, scholarship, and service to receive a rating of Good across all categories.