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:
To articulate the standards and procedures for the annual evaluation of faculty within the Liberal Arts & Sciences Degree Program (Bachelor of General Studies).
APPLIES TO:
Teaching faculty in Liberal Arts & Sciences Degree Program
CAMPUS:
Lawrence
POLICY STATEMENT:
Introduction
The Liberal Arts & Sciences Degree Program (LA&S) subscribes to the University of Kansas Faculty Code of Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct as approved by the Faculty Senate in revised form in 2016 and subsequently amended. The LA&S full-time faculty at the University of Kansas consists of full-time lecturer faculty. Faculty members are expected to demonstrate commitment to effective teaching and mentoring both in the classroom and with individual undergraduate students. They are not expected to engage in professional research or to provide service to the department, College, and University, to local, national, and international communities, and/or to disciplinary and interdisciplinary organizations. Faculty duties are set forth in Article IV of the Faculty Code, and LA&S expects its faculty to live up to those responsibilities. Within the context of the Faculty Code of Conduct, the duties and expectations of LA&S faculty and the means by which they are evaluated are presented below.
Performance Expectations for Teaching
The record must demonstrate continued effectiveness and growth as a teacher, as reflected in such factors as mastery of the subject matter, strong classroom teaching skills, an ongoing commitment to student learning, and active involvement in providing advice and support for students outside the classroom. The candidate’s teaching should reflect knowledge of their field and show that they are effective in encouraging students' interest, helping them to think critically and to apply their knowledge, and point them toward the broader implications of their study. The record must also give indication of responsible fulfillment of all duties associated with teaching, including prompt and regular holding of class sessions and office hours, timely and sufficient grading and comments on assignments, acceptable and fair expectations and criteria for student work (as judged by disciplinary standards), adequate class preparation and effective use of class time, and reflection about pedagogy.
Teaching loads for multi-term lecturers are determined by their contracts.
Annual Evaluation Process
1. Annual Portfolio Preparation
Portfolios should contain a self-evaluation of teaching during the review period and student evaluations for all courses taught during the review period, and course syllabi. Additional materials may include (but are not limited to) example assignments, examples of feedback to students on their assignments, example rubrics, and evidence of special recognition for teaching.
Self-evaluation statements might include discussion of new teaching innovations or assignments, efforts to develop teaching approaches and materials, and/or Center for Teaching Excellence activities. The following items can be used as a guide:
- Course goals, content, and alignment
- Teaching practices
- Class climate
- Achievement of learning outcomes
- Reflection and iterative growth
2. Portfolio Review and Evaluation
On the basis of information provided in an evaluation portfolio, the director/supervisor will assess each full-time lecturer’s teaching performance in their responsibilities on a scale of:
- Excellent
- Very Good
- Good
- Marginal
- Targeted for Improvement
Teaching that meets unit expectations is defined as instruction of regularly scheduled classes; making oneself regularly available to students for consultation in-person and electronically; and regular communication with students, as appropriate to the faculty member’s position description. Student advising and mentoring are also a part of the teaching responsibilities of every faculty member.
When compiling their portfolio, the faculty member should consider the question: How have your courses contributed to the overall good of the unit and student learning? This might include discussion of new teaching innovations or assignments, efforts to develop teaching approaches and materials, Center for Teaching Excellence activities, and/or required supplemental materials (course syllabi and student evaluations).
When conducting peer reviews of teaching, the reviewer should answer the following questions:
- Are the intellectual goals for students well-articulated and congruent with the course content and mission?
- Are there opportunities (in or out of class) for students to practice and demonstrate the skills embedded in course goals?
- Are there noteworthy course structures or procedures that contribute to the achievement of understanding by students?
- Is the performance asked of students appropriate for course goals and the level of the course?
- Has this faculty member made a sincere effort to ensure that students achieve the goals for the course?
- Is there evidence the faculty member has developed their teaching practices based on past teaching experiences?
In addition to the criteria for good and very good teaching, excellent teaching will include the following:
- Innovation in teaching approaches and learning assessment as articulated in the self-evaluation and supporting materials
- a pattern of consistently positive feedback from students
And may include:
- teaching awards (internal/external)
- new course development as required by the unit
In addition to the criteria for good teaching, very good teaching will include:
- maintaining and updating courses specific to the instructor’s course load
- response to departmental and university initiatives and programs and/or unit needs
- a pattern of consistently positive feedback from students (even if these indicate some areas for improvement)
And may include:
- commitment to improve teaching via training programs (e.g. a teaching workshop through CTE, course redesign with CODL)
Good teaching means the candidate meets disciplinary and department/unit expectations.
At a minimum, faculty members evaluated at this level:
- respond to directives from the department and university concerning required assessment of learning outcomes
- maintain their load-appropriate share of the Department’s curriculum
- demonstrate evidence of development of teaching techniques and materials in the self-evaluation letter
Marginal means the candidate falls below disciplinary and department/unit expectations.
A faculty member evaluated at this level:
- demonstrates minimal effort towards course development
- Little-to-no improvement in response to a pattern in of comments in student evaluations of teaching and/or these concerns have not been addressed adequately in the self-evaluation.
- Shows evidence of poor communication and organization in the classroom (e.g. poorly structured lesson plans; not responding to students in a timely manner; not accessible to students; unclear assignments and/or expectations)
Targeted for Improvement:
- Repeated marginal performance in teaching over two years, including the year under review. Significant problems in meeting reasonable student expectations regarding quality of instruction, availability, and feedback as evident in student or peer evaluations or repeated student complaints; receiving an official sanction from a University tribunal or body that proscribed conduct in regard to teaching as outlined in the Faculty Code of Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct.
Either a marginal or a targeted for improvement yearly evaluation in teaching/advising is cause for concern. The director and the faculty member will develop a plan to address the area(s) of difficulty.
3. Annual Evaluation System
The annual evaluation process should be structured and scheduled to allow sufficient time, prior to merit-salary recommendations, for discussions with faculty members concerning their performances in the past cycle and the expectations for their performances in the cycle ahead. Although the evaluation process takes place annually, the faculty member’s performance over a three-year period is taken into consideration. The Director will review evaluations from the previous two years and/or submitted material from the previous two years. The director will request annual evaluation portfolios (including a letter summarizing the year's professional activities and an updated CV) in December of each year with a late January deadline for submission.
4. Evaluation feedback process
Annual Evaluation Feedback Process
I. The director will complete a written evaluation of each faculty member’s performance for the previous calendar year.
II. The director will transmit the evaluation to each faculty member in a letter. Faculty members may schedule a meeting with the director to discuss the evaluation, expectations for the future, continued professional growth, strategies for improvement, contract renewal, or other professional matters. The director will schedule a mandatory meeting with any faculty member rated as “targeted for improvement.” A copy of the written evaluation shall be retained in the faculty member’s personnel file in the unit.
III. Appeals
If a faculty member has been informed that their overall performance fails to meet academic responsibilities, or if they are otherwise dissatisfied with the evaluation, the faculty member may request a review (following a discussion in ii above) within two weeks of receiving their written evaluation from the director. A faculty member may submit a statement and add other information or materials to the file for review by the director. The faculty member’s statement and director’s decision will become a permanent part of the faculty member’s personnel file within the academic unit and shall be available to the faculty member.
IV. If the director ascertains that a faculty member's performance seems to be failing to meet academic responsibilities, they 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 faculty continued renewal and development, or for other appropriate interventions. The director 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/non-renewal.
V. Appeal of evaluation: A faculty member who is still unsatisfied with his/her evaluation after going through the above procedure may seek an administrative review at the College level. The review process must be initiated well before the recommendation for awarding of merit salary increases is due to the College.
VI. If a faculty member has been informed that their 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 director. The director 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.
VII. Department chairs/directors 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.
CONTACT:
Director, Liberal Arts & Sciences Degree Program
Anna Neill
785-864-6778
aneill@ku.edu
RESPONSIBLE UNIT:
College of Liberal Arts & Science
APPROVED BY:
Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor
APPROVAL DATE:
2026-03-06
EFFECTIVE DATE:
2026-03-06
REVIEW CYCLE:
1 year
RELATED STATUTES, REGULATIONS, AND/OR POLICIES:
Kansas Board of Regents (II.C.8)
RELATED RESOURCES:
Liberal Arts & Sciences Degree Program
Center for Teaching Excellence
CHANGE HISTORY:
03/11/2026: New policy added to Policy Library.
TITLE:
Faculty Evaluation Plan, Liberal Arts & Sciences Degree Program