University Policy 4290
Download a Printable Version of Policy 4290
Effective Date
July 1989
Last Revision Date
June 2, 2026
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. Faculty categories and titles referenced in this policy are defined in University Policy 7000 (Position Titles and Definitions).
Additional Authority
- Idaho State Board of Education Policy, Section II.G.
- Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities, Standard 2.B.6
- University Policy 4000 (Faculty Code of Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct)
- University Policy 4220 (Adjunct Faculty)
- University Policy 4300 (Student Course Evaluations)
- University Policy 4340 (Faculty Tenure and Promotion)
- University Policy 4420 (Faculty Absences from Assigned Responsibilities)
- University Policy 4460 (Nonreturnees – Faculty)
- University Policy 4490 (Clinical Faculty)
- University Policy 4560 (Workload for Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty)
- University Policy 4570 (Joint Appointment of a Faculty Member)
- University Policy 4730 (Teaching Faculty)
- University Policy 4750 (Assessment of Faculty Teaching)
- 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
Per Idaho State Board of Education Policy Section II.G.7, the faculty of Boise State University must receive an evaluation of their performance each year. 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.
In addition, per II.G.7, “each institution must establish a policy for annual performance evaluations, publish the criteria, and ensure that all faculty members have advance access to the criteria. Institutions must apply performance standards consistently and fairly across appointment types.” The evaluation must communicate strengths and any areas for improvement and shall be retained in the faculty member’s personnel record.
Annual evaluation is an administrative personnel process distinct from tenure and promotion review (Policy 4340) and from periodic review of tenured faculty (Policy 4380). Although, annual evaluations and documented workload assignments may be included as evidence in those review processes, such documents do not, by themselves, demonstrate that a faculty member meets the criteria for promotion, tenure, periodic review, or the professorial performance award.
In addition, annual evaluations may inform personnel actions, including renewal and nonrenewal decisions. However, procedures and notice requirements for nonrenewal or non-appointment are governed by University Policy 4460 (Nonreturnees – Faculty) and other applicable appointment-type policies. This policy does not establish independent procedures for nonrenewal.
3. Responsibilities and Procedures
3.1 Evaluation Standards
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, as well as any other areas of responsibilities defined by the unit. 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.
Each college must develop written criteria, standards, and evidence requirements for annual evaluation that clearly define performance expectations and required documentation that must be submitted by faculty members. Units may establish additional discipline-specific criteria consistent with college and university policy.
Minimum Requirements:
- The criteria, standards, and evidence must align with this policy and be consistent with University Policy 4560 (Workload Policy for Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty), University Policy 4000 (Faculty Code of Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct), University Policy 4420 (Faculty Absences from Assigned Responsibilities), University Policy 4570 (Joint Appointment of a Faculty Member), and the academic unit-approved workload and annual evaluation policies. Minimum expectations for faculty responsibilities are articulated in University Policy 4000.
- Evaluation of teaching must comply with University Policy 4750 (Assessment of Faculty Teaching) and must include multiple measures of teaching effectiveness. Student course evaluations are one source of evidence and must be interpreted in accordance with University Policy 4300.
Units may determine how performance in teaching, scholarly/creative/research activities, service, and other assigned responsibilities is evaluated and weighted, provided that the evaluation aligns with assigned workload and results in an overall performance determination.
The criteria adopted by each academic unit must be approved by the faculty in the unit and by the Dean, and must be kept on file by the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs. All members of the faculty in the academic unit must have access to the criteria.
3.2 Evaluation Process
Annual performance evaluations are based on the faculty member’s performance in the prior academic year. Evidence of performance may include work completed during the summer immediately following that academic year, consistent with the faculty member’s assigned workload. Scholarship and creative activity are evaluated based on contributions during the review period and are not limited to contracted appointment periods.
Purpose: Annual evaluations under this policy are both formative—providing guidance for improvement—and summative—providing an overall performance determination.
Requirements: Each academic unit leader who supervises faculty must evaluate all faculty members of the academic unit annually. Adjunct faculty must be evaluated by the chair/division manager or designee, according to the frequency and structure established by the academic unit (Section 3.3).
- Evidence: Evidence submitted for annual evaluation must align with unit-defined criteria and assigned workload. Minimum evidence must include faculty activities for the review period submitted to the electronic system. Additional evidence may include narrative self-evaluation, documentation of teaching effectiveness, scholarly/creative/research products, and documentation of service and other assigned responsibilities as defined in college, school or department policies.
- Written Feedback: The department/unit leader or supervisor shall provide written feedback to the faculty member that reflects the evaluation of performance relative to assigned workload and published unit criteria. Evaluations must be sufficiently detailed to communicate performance strengths and any areas requiring improvement, per SBOE Policy II.G.
- Assigned Workload: Annual evaluation must be conducted in relation to the faculty member’s formally-assigned workload for the evaluation period. Workload percentages (e.g., teaching, scholarly/creative/research activities, service, administrative duties, or other assigned responsibilities) must be documented as part of the evaluation record. Significant changes in workload during the evaluation period must be documented and reflected in the evaluation. Workload assignments must be established prior to or early in the evaluation period.
Electronic System: The Office of the Provost designates the official electronic system for submission and retention of annual evaluation materials. All materials submitted through this system constitute the official evaluation record.
3.3 Criteria for Evaluation by Faculty Position Type
Evaluations shall align with the expectations and workload defined in the relevant appointment-type policies, including but not limited to University Policies 4220 (Adjunct Faculty), 4490 (Clinical Faculty), 4730 (Teaching Faculty), 5010 (Research Faculty), and 4340 (Faculty Tenure and Promotion).
Adjunct Faculty shall be evaluated on a regular and consistent basis in accordance with University Policy 4220, relative to their assigned responsibilities as outlined in their Letter of Appointment.
The frequency and structure of Adjunct Faculty evaluations shall be determined by the academic unit, taking into account the duration and continuity of the appointment, instructional workload, and unit resources.
Units must establish and publish their adjunct evaluation practices to ensure consistency and transparency.
3.4 Evaluation Deadlines
A faculty member’s annual performance evaluation covers the performance of all assigned responsibilities (workload) during the faculty member’s contracted appointment period(s) in the prior academic year, including any separate or additional contracts, regardless of contract length.
3.4.1 Faculty Submission
October 1: Faculty are responsible for submitting a self-evaluation and evidence demonstrating performance in assigned workload areas for the review period, which spans the fall and spring terms as well as summer terms when assigned. Professional activities completed by the beginning of the subsequent fall term may be considered as evidence of performance in the annual evaluation for the applicable review period. Units may define the format and structure of the self-evaluation consistent with their published criteria. Requests for exceptions to the deadline will be reviewed by the appropriate dean’s office.
a. Faculty applying for promotion and/or tenure who have submitted materials in the Fall for promotion and/or tenure may submit their application letter in lieu of a full annual self-evaluation. They must also submit a brief summary of activities and achievements that occurred during the review period.
b. Faculty undergoing post-tenure review who have submitted materials in the Fall for post-tenure review may submit their materials for this process in lieu of a full annual self-evaluation. They must also submit a brief summary of activities and achievements that occurred during the review period.
c. New faculty members whose employment began during the Fall semester will not have to submit evidence covering the period prior to their employment. They will receive a 1: “Achieves performance standards” unless documented performance concerns arise during the review period. New faculty members whose employment begins during the spring semester shall be evaluated based upon the portion of the academic year from their start date with a default rating of 1 for the abbreviated period.
Faculty members are responsible for submitting required materials by the established deadline, unless an approved exception has been granted by the Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs. If materials are not submitted, the faculty member’s supervisor will complete the evaluation based on available information. When sufficient evidence of performance is not available, the evaluation will reflect that absence of evidence and may result in a rating of “does not meet expectations.” However, in such instances, supervisors may consider a grace period for good cause (e.g., in the event of an emergency).
3.4.2 Department/Unit Leader or Supervisor Evaluation
December 1: Department/unit leaders or supervisors must provide a written evaluation to each faculty member. The written evaluation may be provided electronically. Faculty have the option of an individual conference with the department chair/unit leader/supervisor to discuss the evaluation.
When performance does not meet unit standards in any assigned workload area, the written evaluation should clearly:
- Identify the area(s) of concern;
- Specify the applicable standard;
- Establish a clear plan and timeline to support the faculty member in achieving the required improvements.
Developmental improvement requirements under this policy are distinct from disciplinary action under University Policy 4000 and Idaho State Board of Education Policy II.L.
3.4.3 Faculty Response
Between December 1 and December 15: A faculty member must acknowledge receipt of their annual performance evaluation through the designated system.
If the faculty member does not agree with the evaluation, the faculty member may request a meeting with the department chair/unit leader/supervisor. The meeting must occur within five (5) working days of receipt of the evaluation. 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 an opportunity to respond in writing to the evaluation through a formal addendum. The faculty member must submit the addendum by December 15.
The finalized document and any addendum must be signed by the faculty member and the department chair/unit leader/supervisor and placed in the department/unit’s official personnel file of the faculty member. E-signatures are permitted if an electronic system is used for the performance evaluation process. Access is limited to the supervisor, dean, and authorized personnel.
December 15: The final evaluation, any addenda and any development/ remediation plans must be available for the college dean to access.
March 1: Merit ratings for faculty members must be submitted in accordance with University procedures.
3.4.4 Performance Ratings and Compensation Reporting
Each annual evaluation must result in an overall performance determination based on the faculty member’s assigned workload and unit-defined standards. Internally, units may assign ratings by category and may weight categories according to workload distribution.
For the purposes of Change in Employee Compensation (CEC) submissions, supervisors must use the 0–3 scale as required by the Idaho Division of Human Resources (3 = Exemplary, 2 = Exceeds, 1 = Achieves, 0 = Does Not Achieve) See Human Resources website for definitions. The 0–3 scale is used solely for required compensation reporting and does not replace the unit’s evaluative criteria, standards, merit scores, or narrative assessment.
3.4.5 Administrative Home
a. All non-adjunct and non-administrative faculty must be assigned an administrative home for performance evaluation purposes. If a faculty member’s workload is divided between two units, the administrative home must be determined by the relevant vice president or dean.
b. For faculty members who perform assigned duties outside their administrative home (including joint appointments), the chair or leader of the home unit must solicit and document evaluation input from the relevant secondary unit(s) to ensure that all assigned work is appropriately evaluated.
The Office of the Provost will work with academic units to identify administrative home departments/units to conduct annual evaluations of Adjunct Faculty.
3.5 Off-Contract University Work
This section applies to University-assigned duties performed outside a faculty member’s contracted work dates or assigned work period (e.g., summer teaching or administrative assignments) and does not apply to scholarship or creative activity. University-assigned activities conducted outside these periods may be included in the annual performance evaluation only when they are formally approved as part of the faculty member’s institutional responsibilities or separately compensated. Inclusion of such activities does not establish an expectation of work outside the faculty member’s contracted work dates or assigned work period.
3.6 Academic Freedom and Professional Judgment
Annual evaluations must respect academic freedom as defined in University Policy 4000. Collegiality may be considered only insofar as it relates to assigned responsibilities in teaching, scholarship/creative/research activities, or service and may not constitute a separate evaluative category unless explicitly defined in approved unit criteria.
3.7 Special Circumstances
Faculty on approved leave for any portion of an evaluation period (Family and Medical Leave or other leaves as defined in policies 7620, Time Away from Work and 7230, Family and Medical Leave.) shall be evaluated relative to the portion of the period during which assigned responsibilities were active, consistent with their assigned workload. Faculty with no assigned responsibilities during the evaluation period are not subject to performance review for that period.
Faculty on approved sabbatical leaves will be evaluated based on the approved sabbatical plan and assigned responsibilities during that period.
Affiliate and visitor appointments are governed by their respective appointment policies and are not subject to annual evaluation under this policy unless explicitly stated in the terms of appointment.
4. Appendix
Given the unprecedented circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, a Faculty Evaluation Procedural Appendix was approved in December, 2020, to provide procedural guidance for individuals and committees regarding performance evaluation during any period of time that has been designated an “affected term.” Accordingly, “[a]ll forms of Faculty performance evaluation that include an Affected Term within the review period shall be subject to the procedural adjustments described” in the Procedural Appendix. These adjustments include post-hoc workload adjustments. This Appendix has the force of policy.
To date, the following semesters have been declared affected terms:
- Spring/Summer/Fall 2020
- Spring/Summer/Fall 2021
- Spring 2022
Supervisors and faculty reviewers applied the principles for evaluation outlined in the Appendix for all faculty during those periods, and no subsequent reviewer may change them.
5. Frequently Asked Questions
Summary of Nonstandard Situations
FMLA → evaluated proportionally
Leave of absence → evaluated proportionally or not at all if no workload
Sabbatical → evaluated relative to sabbatical assignment (objectives and accomplishments)
Visiting/Affiliate → governed separately
6. Related Information
University Policy 4380 (Periodic Review of Tenured Faculty)
University Policy 4400 (Faculty Sabbatical Leave)
University Policy 4740 (Faculty Multiple Year Appointments)
Revision History
July 1995; March 2000; March 2003; September 2009; October 2014; April 2016; July 2019; June 2, 2026