Skip to main content

Annual Faculty Performance Evaluation (Policy 4290)

University Policy 4290

Download a Printable Version of Policy 4290


Effective Date

July 1989

Last Revision Date

July 2019

Responsible Party

Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, (208) 426-1202

Scope and Audience

This policy applies to all full-time and part-time Faculty.

Additional Authority

  • Idaho State Board of Education Policy, Section II.G.
  • Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities, Standard 2.B.6
  • University Policy 4220 (Adjunct Faculty)
  • University policy 4330 (Student Course Evaluations)
  • University policy 4490 (Clinical Faculty)
  • University Policy 4340 (Faculty Tenure and Promotion)
  • University Policy 4560 (Workload for Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty)
  • University Policy 5010 (Research Faculty)
  • University Policy 7000 (Position Titles and Definitions)

1. Policy Purpose

To establish guidelines for the annual performance evaluation of faculty.

2. Policy Statement

The faculty of Boise State University must be reviewed annually to evaluate their performance. Evaluation of performance is an important component of faculty development and personnel actions such as reappointment, non-appointment, granting promotion and/or tenure, salary determination, and other personnel actions.

3. Definitions

3.1 Adjunct Faculty

Part-time, non-benefit-eligible, temporary faculty positions. These individuals are appointed to teach one or more courses or workshops for one academic term, not to exceed five consecutive months per appointment.

3.2 Research Faculty

A faculty position in which the primary responsibility is to contribute to the research mission of the University through the development of a rigorous research program.

3.3 Teaching Faculty

A faculty position in which the primary responsibility is teaching courses in degree and/or certificate programs for an academic year to include the titles Lecturer, Clinical, and Instructor Faculty.

3.4 Tenure-Eligible Faculty

A faculty position assigned to an academic department or the University library wherein the incumbent holds academic rank and is eligible for tenure, or is tenured. Titles in this category are the same as three of the four primary academic ranks defined by the Idaho State Board of Education plus the additional title of distinguished professor. The ranks in ascending order are assistant professor, associate professor, and professor.

4. Responsibilities and Procedures

4.1 General Requirements

The faculty and the dean of each college and the Library must establish criteria for evaluating faculty within the general categories of teaching, scholarly/creative/research activities, and service. Such criteria must recognize variations among disciplines and departments, and the different expectations for the Library with respect to faculty performance. The relative importance of the various criteria may change over time according to college or Library goals. The criteria adopted by each college and the Library must be approved and kept on file by the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs. All members of the faculty must have access to the criteria.

4.2 Performance Evaluations

Each department chair/division manager must provide for the annual evaluation of all faculty members of the department. An electronic system may be used for the evaluation process as determined by the Office of the Provost. Part-time faculty must be evaluated by the chair/division manager or designee.

4.2.1 Teaching Evaluation

Procedures for all faculty who teach including Adjunct Faculty must include a review of student course evaluations (see University Policy 4300), and may also include evidence of active student engagement (essays, publications, lab reports, etc…), classroom observations, a critical self-evaluation of their own teaching, and evidence of efforts to improve teaching such as: a) incorporation of field projects into courses, b) adoption of a new teaching method, or c) an innovative instructional use of media.

4.2.2 Clinical Faculty

In addition to the requirements for evaluation of teaching, the annual review of Clinical Faculty must include assessment of primary duties such as supervision and service as delineated by the workload for the Clinical Faculty, and may also include review of research/scholarship. See University Policy 4490 (Clinical Faculty) for details.

4.2.3 Lecturer and Instructor Faculty

In addition to the evaluation of teaching (Section 4.2.1), the annual review of lecturers or instructors may include assessment of service, advising, and research/scholarship.

4.2.4 Tenure-Eligible Faculty

In addition to the evaluation of teaching (Section 4.2.1), the annual review will include evidence of scholarly/creative activities and/or research such as presentations, peer judgments about publications, success in securing funding through grants if appropriate to the discipline, contracts, and service.

4.2.5 Research Faculty

In addition to the evaluation of teaching for Research Faculty who teach (Section 4.2.1), the annual review will include evidence of research activities such as presentations, peer judgments about publications, success in securing funding through grants, contracts, and/or other related activities.

4.3 Evaluation Deadlines

a.  Faculty are responsible for submitting evidence to the department chair by February 1 to demonstrate their teaching and/or research effectiveness as well as evidence of service for the previous calendar year (as detailed in Section 4.2). Requests for exceptions to the deadline will be reviewed by the appropriate dean’s office.

b.  Prior to March 31 each year, or the next business day, department chairs/division managers must provide a written evaluation to each faculty member. The written evaluation may be provided in hard copy, as an email attachment, or as part of an electronic evaluation system. Faculty have the option of an individual conference with the chair to discuss the evaluation.

c.  If the faculty member agrees with the chair’s division manager’s evaluation, and no deficiencies (performance concerns) or developmental areas are identified, the faculty member acknowledges receipt of the evaluation, and it is complete for the record.

d.  If the faculty member agrees with the chair’s/division manager’s evaluation and deficiencies in a faculty member’s performance are identified, the faculty member is responsible for remediating the deficiencies and the institution, through the department chair/division manager, is expected to assist that remedial action.

e.  If the faculty member does not agree with the chair’s/division manager’s evaluation, the faculty member may schedule a meeting with the chair/division manager to discuss the preliminary report. After this meeting, the chair/division manager will write a final evaluation report and provide a copy to the faculty member. If the faculty member does not agree with the final report, the faculty member has the prerogative to write an addendum. The finalized document and any addendum must be signed by the faculty member and the department chair/division manager and placed in the department’s official personnel file of the faculty member. A copy of this report must be given to the faculty member. E-signatures are permitted if an electronic system is used for the performance evaluation process.

f.  A copy of the final evaluation report, and any such addendum, must be maintained in the performance evaluation record, or stored electronically in the electronic evaluation system if such a system is used for the performance evaluation process.

g.  A copy of the final faculty evaluation report, any addenda and plans for the faculty member’s development/remediation must be available for the college dean to access by April 15.

4.4 Administrative Home

a.  All non-adjunct and non-administrative faculty must be assigned an administrative home department/school/program or college for performance evaluation purposes. Should a faculty member’s workload be divided between two departments/a school/program or college, the administrative home must be determined by the relevant vice president or deans’ offices.

b.  If any faculty member works outside the administrative home, the chair/head of the faculty member’s home department may solicit evaluation feedback from other academic units. This could include, but is not limited to, colleagues in other departments/colleges; e-campus; or University Foundations.

c.  Human Resources will work with academic units to identify administrative home departments to conduct annual evaluations of Adjunct Faculty.


Revision History

July 1995; March 2000; March 2003; September 2009; October 2014; April 2016; July 2019