Appendix 4.5: Evaluation Levels and Guidelines

1. Full-Time Faculty Evaluation Process and Instructions

   All deadlines for the Full-Time Faculty Evaluation Process can be found in the Steps and Deadlines Chart at the end of Section 7. Tenure-track evaluations, and evaluations of tenure and rank advancement applications must take place during the spring semester. They must be completed by March 31. Academic supervisors have the discretion to hold other post-tenure reviews and informal reviews of tenured faculty during the fall semester.

   Setting Goals: Each year, the faculty member will, in discussion with the academic supervisor, evaluate progress during the prior period to update goals in the areas of Teaching, Professional Activity and Development, and Service (Form 1 Faculty Planning and Support). The goal setting process includes an evaluation of the prior period and includes planning and support needed to meet the new goals.

   • The academic supervisor will convene the goal setting meeting for each faculty member.
   • These goals will be recorded on Form 1 and filed in the faculty member's division/department faculty file. The faculty member also will upload this form to their professional portfolio to the Institutional Documents section.
   • Form 1 goals should be appropriate for the faculty member's career stage and trajectory, the needs of the department, and the Mission, Vision, Values, and Strategic Plans of the college.
   • Form 1 goals should be achievable within an academic year working in a full-time faculty position. If the faculty member is on an institutionally approved reduced load or leave, the goals will reflect this.
   • Goal-setting will be finished by the appropriate deadlines.
   • Appropriate, goals may be modified during the evaluation period as circumstances change. Significant changes should be addressed in the professional portfolio.
   • The Form 1 will record accomplishments from the prior year, how those inform new goals, and indicate resources for planning and support in agreement with the academic supervisor.

   Non-Tenure-Track/Tenure-Track Evaluation and Formal Post-Tenure Review

   This does not pertain to the application for full professor.

   Sitting Committee

   The role of the Faculty (Peer) Mentors on the Sitting Committee: The primary mentors for all faculty evaluation are their peers on their sitting committee. They will engage with the faculty throughout the evaluation period, assist with developing clear and measurable goals for the faculty, Form 1, and share both formative and summative feedback with the faculty.

   The Faculty Mentor's role:

   • Provide continual formative feedback throughout each academic year.
   • Assist in better teaching, service, and professional activities.
   • Assist in understanding shared governance.
   • Emphasize a growth and not a punitive mindset.
   • Discuss collegiality and collaboration.
   • Be available, be supportive, and be professionally critical.
   • Collaborate and assist with achieving Form 1 goals.
   • First year – help new faculty understand the tenure process – check in frequently; help faculty find committee work.

   Serving as a Faculty Mentor is a significant service commitment and will be formally recognized as part of the mentor's service contributions in post-tenure annual reviews, where mentors will also receive feedback on their mentoring responsibilities. Faculty serving as mentors on sitting committees will be evaluated by the academic supervisor as part of the informal post-tenure evaluation process.

   Specifications of Sitting Committee: The academic supervisor coordinates evaluation sitting committee requests to ensure that evaluation sitting committee participation is equitably distributed among tenured faculty.

   • The academic supervisor of the faculty serves as the chair of the evaluation sitting committee
     • The evaluation sitting committee chair ensures that all steps of the sitting committee are completed.
     • The evaluation process is open to the faculty member being reviewed. All discussion, forms, and decisions may be openly discussed with the faculty member at any time.

   Formation of Faculty Mentors on the Evaluation Sitting Committee: The academic supervisor, in collaboration with the faculty member, selects two Faculty Mentors from the Standing Committee.

   • Tenure-Track Reviews: The Standing Committee comprises all tenured faculty within a department or division.
   • Post-Tenure Reviews: The Standing Committee consists of all tenured faculty at SLCC, with two members required from outside the faculty department.
     • As defined by statute, formal post-tenure sitting committees will consist of:
       • The provost or provost's designee, which is defined as the academic supervisor
       • Two tenured faculty members from a different department, and
       • The faculty member may select an additional tenured faculty member from their department.
     • Faculty applying for rank advancement to full professor must have at least one full professor on the sitting committee. If a department has enough tenured faculty, full professors should prioritize serving on rank advancement evaluation sitting committees before other sitting committees.

   Faculty Mentors are not limited to the department/college where the faculty resides. There are many reasons to choose a mentor from outside the department.

   • The department or division lacks sufficient tenured faculty to form a sitting committee.
   • The faculty has established a good relationship with a mentor outside the department
   • The faculty aligns with a specific area of growth.
   • The faculty wishes to collaborate with another department on curricular, professional development, or service activities.

   While tenure-track faculty are encouraged to maintain consistency in their peer evaluators, they may select new members during their pre-probationary period.

2. Teaching Observations

   The Sitting Committee Members must observe a minimum of one class or its equivalent during the evaluation period. Deans may observe faculty at their discretion and are encouraged to give a teaching observation report if applicable. Faculty should be ready for drop-in observations; however, the sitting committee members and the Dean should give prior notice before a formal evaluation occurs.

   • Faculty Mentors will initiate contact with the faculty member to coordinate teaching observations and request access to syllabi, course materials, Canvas sites, and other artifacts necessary to conduct a meaningful observation. Faculty being reviewed will respond to these requests prior to the observation.
   • When a faculty member teaches in multiple modalities, Faculty Mentors will coordinate with each other, ensuring all modalities receive substantive feedback. Each Faculty Mentor should be responsible for giving feedback on one modality.
   • Teaching observations should not be disruptive to student learning. When observing online courses, Faculty Mentors should be granted appropriate access to the Canvas course. Faculty Mentors should retain this access only as long as it is necessary to give substantive feedback to the faculty. Use this form: ( https://slcc.formstack.com/forms/add_users) to request access to the Canvas Site(s).
   • After the teaching observation, the Faculty Mentor conducting the evaluation will have a timely, informal conversation with the faculty member to discuss feedback. This discussion serves as an opportunity to highlight strengths, provide constructive feedback, and allow the faculty being observed to respond to feedback, and, if needed, outline areas for improvement. Additional observations may be conducted to assess progress.
   • Following this informal feedback, the Faculty Mentor will complete a teaching observation form and/or write a formal report, noting commendations and recommendations relevant to the Standards of Professional Performance in Teaching.
   • The Faculty Mentor will then upload a digital copy of the teaching observation form and/or report to the faculty member's academic department tenure file within two weeks of the informal conversation with the faculty.
   • Faculty members can respond to the Faculty Mentor during an informal conversation.
   • Teaching observations should take place by the end of the fall semester.

   Completion of "Form 2: Faculty Evaluation": Prior to the Faculty Performance Evaluation Meeting, each Faculty Mentor will complete the Faculty Evaluation Form by reviewing the contents of the faculty member's academic department tenure file. This evaluation will be conducted according to the faculty job description (Appendix 1).

   Faculty Mentors will evaluate and assess each area of responsibility: teaching, professional activity & development, and service as "Standard Professional Performance," "Below Standard Professional Performance," or "Exceeds Standard Professional Performance" using the Faculty Evaluation Guidelines in Section 8 of this document.

   Faculty Performance Evaluation Meeting: The deadline for Faculty Performance Evaluation Meetings is March 15. The deadline will make it possible to complete the tenure-track and rank advancement evaluation processes by March 31. Those involved in formal evaluation processes (faculty being evaluated and Faculty Mentors) will be notified of their Faculty Performance Evaluation meeting dates no later than January 31. The meeting will follow these steps:

   • First, in the spirit of the evaluation process, the evaluation sitting committee meets with the faculty member to address any questions that evaluation sitting committee members may have regarding performance. Evaluation sitting committee members may update Form 2 based on the discussion.
   • Second, after the faculty member leaves the meeting, the sitting committee discusses their responses to Form 2. Sitting committee members are encouraged to share the content of this discussion with the faculty member being reviewed. This discussion will not include personnel matters which are confidential to the academic supervisor.
   • Third, each sitting committee member independently evaluates the faculty member's performance per the appendix 4 evaluation levels as below, meeting or exceeding professional standards. The chair records these assessments on Form 3. If a committee member rates the faculty member as exceeding or falling below professional standards, they must provide a rationale for their decision.

   When a Form 4 is Used:

   If it is relevant to the faculty evaluation process, supervisory or personnel information regarding the faculty member will be disclosed to the dean only by the academic supervisor using "Form 4: Academic Administrator Supervisory Evaluation". This information and form will be placed in their HR personnel file, not the academic tenure file. This information will not be shared with the Faculty Mentors. The faculty member under review will be notified immediately and may respond in writing to the dean within 10 days.

   • The evaluation process is open to the faculty member being reviewed. All discussions, forms, and decisions may be openly discussed with the faculty member at any time.
   • In collaboration with the academic supervisor and Dean, the faculty member is encouraged to discuss Form 4 content with their Faculty Mentors as it applies to teaching, professional activity, or service.

   Institutional Support and Standardization for the Faculty Evaluation Process: To ensure fairness, transparency, and consistency in the tenure process across academic schools, the Office of the Provost will appoint one tenured faculty member from each school, preferably a full professor—to support the standardization of tenure evaluations. These appointed faculty members will form a group that collaborates with the Dean's Council to address tenure-related concerns across schools.

   The Senior Associate Provost, or their designee, will oversee the group's efforts, facilitating coordination and communication between faculty representatives, the Deans and the Office of the Provost.

   This group will engage with faculty to clarify the meaning of tenure and the criteria for evaluating tenure and rank advancement. Additionally, they will collect best practices from across the institution to support Deans in implementing consistent standards within their respective schools and work with the Faculty Teaching and Learning Center to help in the professional development of Faculty Mentors and Tenure Track Faculty.

   During formal faculty evaluation processes, the dean, provost, and president are not required to agree with the previous recommendation but are bound to thoroughly review all recommendations and documents submitted to them by the Sitting Committee, academic supervisor, and Human Resources.

   Non-Tenure Track Evaluation: The evaluation sitting committee chair or designee will complete and transmit "Form 3 Non-Tenure-Track Evaluation Summary" to the dean, the faculty member, and the faculty member's department file.

   Instructions for Tenure-Track Evaluation: The evaluation sitting committee will vote on the recommendation for a Letter of Evaluation (a Letter of Progress or a Letter of Concern). Each member of the evaluation sitting committee has an equal vote. The recommendation will be determined by majority vote. The chair will complete "Form 3 TT: Tenure-Track Evaluation Summary and Recommendation" with the decision and vote tally and will draft any necessary comments.

   • A Letter of Progress recommendation is warranted if the majority vote of the evaluation sitting committee finds that the faculty member has met or exceeded Standard Professional Performance in teaching and at least one other area. A Letter of Progress will include recommendations for continued improvement in performance in all areas.
   • A Letter of Concern recommendation is warranted when the majority vote of the evaluation sitting committee finds that the faculty member has not met Standard Professional Performance in teaching or in more than one area of evaluation, if recommendations from previous Letter(s) of Progress or remediations from a previous Letter of Concern have not been met, or if the faculty member has violated Standards of Professional Responsibility.
   • A Letter of Concern should clearly articulate the deficits in a faculty member's performance and provide specific and attainable steps towards remediation.

   The chair of the evaluation sitting committee will transmit the "Form 3 TT: Tenure-Track Evaluation Summary and Recommendation" and the "Form 2: Faculty Evaluation" forms to the dean and notify the faculty member of the committee's recommendation. The faculty member may submit to the dean a written response regarding the recommendation within 10 business days.

   If the dean does not agree with the evaluation sitting committee's recommendation, the dean will consult with the entire evaluation sitting committee before deciding on the Letter of Evaluation.

   • By March 31, the dean will send to the faculty member a Letter of Progress with recommendations for continued improvement or a Letter of Concern with detailed requirements for remediation.
   • The evaluation sitting committee chair will ensure that the Letter of Evaluation and Form 3 TT and Form 2 are placed in the faculty division/department faculty file.

   Instructions for Application of Tenure:

   Along with the professional portfolio requirements, the faculty member will submit to the chair of the evaluation sitting committee the Application for Tenure form that includes a link to the digital professional portfolio.

   Faculty may request to credit years of previous satisfactory academic service for tenure using the "Request to Credit Previous Satisfactory Academic Service" form. Faculty are encouraged to submit the form at least a year before they apply for tenure. Forms need to be submitted by the following dates: September 1 for submitting the application to the academic supervisor which then goes to the sitting committee; December 15 for submitting the application from the Dean to the Provost.

   If approval of crediting previous years of satisfactory academic service towards tenure is not recommended by the evaluation sitting committee, dean, or provost, the faculty member will be notified within 10 business days.

   Instructions for Evaluation of the Application for Tenure:

   The evaluation sitting committee will read the application for tenure statement prior to the Faculty Performance Evaluation meeting.

   • If the evaluation sitting committee has recommended a final Letter of Progress, they will discuss and vote upon the Application for Tenure. The evaluation sitting committee will use the definition of tenure found in the Academic Freedom, Professional Responsibility and Tenure Policy and Procedures. Each member of the evaluation sitting committee has an equal vote. The application for tenure recommendation will be made based on majority vote.
   • The evaluation sitting committee chair will record the recommendation and vote tally on the application for tenure form and all evaluation sitting committee members will sign it.
   • The academic supervisor will forward the application for tenure, the Form 3 TT and Form 2, and Form 4 (if relevant), to the dean and the faculty member.
   • The dean will review the materials, the professional portfolio, and any pertinent information from Human Resources before indicating their recommendation for approval or denial of tenure on the application form. By March 31, the dean will transmit the application for tenure and attach a detailed letter recommending approval or denial of tenure to the provost.
   • The provost will review the application for tenure and professional portfolio and make a recommendation to the president.
   • The probationary period may be extended, interrupted, or reduced at the discretion of the Provost for Academic Affairs in collaboration with the department faculty and academic administrator.
   • If approval of tenure is not recommended by the evaluation sitting committee, dean, or provost, the faculty member will be notified within one business day of the first level of nonrecommendation. The faculty member may submit a written response to their tenure application materials within 10 business days.

   Instructions for Formal Post-Tenure Review:

   The evaluation sitting committee chair will complete "Form 3PT: Post-Tenure Review Summary" and will transmit the completed form to the faculty member and ensure that it is placed in the faculty member's division/department faculty file.

   • Formal post-tenure review that does not co-occur with application for rank advancement will be completed by the appropriate deadline to be determined by the dean and posted to the school and Discussion Team. Formal post-tenure review that co-occurs with application for rank advancement to full professor will be completed by March 31.
   • Faculty may appeal the findings of a formal post-tenure review. The appeal must be made in writing within 10 business days of being notified and be addressed to the dean. The appeal must demonstrate that the Formal Post-Tenure Review findings were incorrect based on the materials and evidence submitted by the faculty member. The faculty member may not submit new evidence but may provide evidence to respond to specific concerns raised in the decision. The dean will respond to the appeal within 10 business days.

   Instructions for Application for Rank Advancement to Full Professor:

   Associate Professors are eligible to apply for rank advancement starting in their fifth year as a tenured faculty member. In order to apply for full professor, they must achieve "Exceeding Standard Professional Performance" in Teaching and at least one of the two other evaluation areas in their current or most recent formal post-tenure evaluation. They must meet at least Standard Professional Performance in the other area.

   • Along with the professional portfolio requirements, the faculty member will submit to the chair of the evaluation sitting committee the Application for Rank Advancement to Full Professor form that includes a link to the digital professional portfolio.
   • Faculty are not automatically advanced to the rank of Full Professor after 6 years of post-tenure work. Faculty who intend to apply for advancement to Full Professor should meet with their academic supervisor to signal this intent in at least the academic year prior to application. Since the criteria for Full Professor is rigorous and takes multiple years to achieve, faculty should plan as early as possible for this by working closely with members of the Standing Committee of Full Professors and their Sitting Committee. Faculty may want to start this conversation as early as their first post-tenure year.

   Instructions for Evaluation of Application for Rank Advancement to Full Professor:

   The evaluation sitting committee will read the application for rank advancement prior to the Faculty Performance Evaluation meeting.

   If the faculty member meets the eligibility requirements for application, the evaluation sitting committee will discuss and vote upon recommendation for approval. The evaluation sitting committee will use the description of "Full Professor" of this document. Each member of the evaluation sitting committee has an equal vote. The application for rank advancement recommendation will be made based on majority vote.

   • The evaluation sitting committee chair will record the recommendation and vote tally on the application form and sign it. The chair will draft a detailed letter to the dean with the rationale for approval or denial of rank advancement to be signed by the full committee.
   • The academic supervisor will forward the application for rank advancement, the letter of rationale, and Form 4 (if relevant), separately to the dean and the faculty member.
   • If approval of rank advancement is not recommended by the evaluation sitting committee or the academic supervisor, the faculty member will be notified within one business day. The faculty member may submit a written response to the dean within 10 business days of receiving the notification.
   • The dean will notify the faculty member of the decision no later than March 31. If rank advancement is not approved, the denial will be accompanied by specific reasoning for the decision and clear steps the faculty member may take to meet rank advancement criteria.

   Completing the Formal Evaluation Cycle:

   By the end of the appropriate semester, the academic supervisor will meet with each faculty member who has completed a formal faculty evaluation process to review Form 3 and to set Form 1 goals. The academic supervisor or the faculty member under review may request that the evaluation sitting committee members attend this meeting.

   This step in the formal evaluation cycle may take place during the Faculty Performance Evaluation meeting.

   Informal Evaluation of Tenured Faculty:

   Each year tenured faculty will evaluate the prior year's goals and set new goals with their academic supervisor. These goals should be made with consideration of whether the faculty member wishes to pursue advancement to full professor in the future. The academic supervisor will discuss the prior year's goals, accomplishments, goals for the upcoming year, and any further planning or support needed. Both the academic supervisor and the faculty member will then complete Form 1 Faculty Planning and Support and file it in the faculty member's division/department faculty file.

3. Faculty Evaluation Levels and Guidelines

   Evaluation Levels

   Meets Standard Professional Performance

   This is the expectation of all full-time faculty at Salt Lake Community College.

   Criteria: This is given when the sitting committee finds that the faculty member has met the activities in the job description (Appendix 1) for teaching, professional activity, or service.

   Below Standard Professional Performance

   This is not the expectation of full-time faculty at SLCC.

   Criteria: This is given when the sitting committee finds that the faculty member has not met the activities in the job description (Appendix 1) for teaching, professional activity, or service.

   This may consist of a pattern of moderate struggles with multiple criteria, or a single significant failure or serious problem.

   A rationale must be provided for this rating. If no rationale can be given, the rating should default to "meets expectations."

   Exceeds Standard Professional Performance

   This is not the expectation of full-time faculty at SLCC.

   Criteria: This is given when the sitting committee finds that the faculty member has gone above and beyond the activities in the job description (Appendix 1) for teaching, professional activity, or service.

   Faculty achieving the criteria of Exceeds Standard Expectations have shown evidence of growth and leadership in areas of teaching, professional activities, and service. Examples of such evidence are provided below.

   A rationale must be provided for this rating. If no rationale can be given, the rating should default to "meets expectations."

    

   Suggestions for Consideration for Exceeding Standard Performance

   Teaching:

   • Implements high-impact practices such as team teaching, hybrid course design, learning communities, capstone courses, and service learning.
   • Serves as a guest lecturer for colleagues.
   • Continuously reviews, assesses, and reflects on pedagogical methods and technologies, demonstrating their impact on student learning outcomes.
   • Develops curriculum and pedagogy informed by student feedback, research, or advancements in the field.
   • Collaborates with colleagues by sharing effective teaching techniques and innovations.
   • Demonstrates exemplary student performance on certification exams, competency assessments, and/or federal testing requirements, if applicable.
   • Provides documentation of how annual peer reviews of teaching data and feedback influence pedagogical and curricular updates.
   • Supervises independent study or internship students.
   • Earns internal or external recognition for excellence in teaching and pedagogy (certificates, awards, SOTL contributions, etc.).
   • Critically reflects on the relationship between teaching methods and students' ability to achieve higher-order learning.
   • Maintains up-to-date industry knowledge across multiple courses, enabling instruction in various departmental offerings.
   • Demonstrates leadership in pedagogical or discipline-specific initiatives that extend beyond standard curricular responsibilities.
   • Designs new curricula that serve as models for faculty or inform the revision and development of courses and programs.
   • Guides students in preparing for career-path or academic presentations at local, state, and national levels.

   Professional Activity:

   • Organizes peer discussion groups, teaching circles, professional workshops, and scholarly webinars, connecting participation to department or college initiatives.
   • Develops and shares new research or teaching skills.
   • Presents research to college, local, state, national, or international audiences.
   • Demonstrates leadership through presentations, leading teaching circles, or chairing committees.
   • Contributes to scholarly literature by reviewing proposals or manuscripts, writing book reviews for professional journals, or submitting articles to peer-reviewed journals.
   • Develops new CCOs and/or creates model courses used to inform faculty revisions or new course development.
   • Completes additional graduate-level coursework that supports departmental goals and initiatives.
   • Earns external recognition for professional contributions.
   • Creates professional development opportunities or significantly supports colleagues' professional growth.
   • Organizes, manages, or evaluates testing services for national/state certifications.
   • Serves as an evaluator for professional proficiency assessments.
   • Actively integrates professional organization standards into college initiatives, aligning with institutional SLOs.
   • Organizes regional or national professional conferences in collaboration with field experts.
   • Demonstrates interdisciplinary connections between their field and other areas of study.
   • Leads five-year course reviews, revising content to align with college and department strategic priorities.

   Service:

   • Organizes, manages, or evaluates national/state certification testing services or proficiency exams.
   • Integrates professional organization standards into departmental, college, or state initiatives.
   • Assumes leadership roles in curriculum development and department research projects.
   • Coordinates regional or national professional conferences, collaborating with experts at various levels.
   • Oversees college events, programs, or seminars.
   • Secures internal or external grants.
   • Advises student clubs and organizes student-centered events.
   • Serves on boards of higher education institutions, PACs, or other professional organizations.
   • Holds faculty leadership positions on internal committees or task forces.
   • Develops and implements effective program assessment activities.
   • Chairs conference panels or organizes academic sessions.
   • Evaluates state or national exams.
   • Designs and delivers adjunct faculty training programs.
   • Represents the institution as an officer, member, facilitator, or liaison for a professional organization.

4. Tenured Administrators Returning to Faculty

   Administrators holding tenure who previously achieved tenure in a teaching department retain tenure and are eligible at any time, regardless of whether a position is open, to return to a full-time teaching position for which they are qualified. The academic administrator will return to their faculty rank held prior to accepting an administrative position (see also “Academic Freedom, Professional Responsibility and Tenure Policy and Procedures). They may follow the rank advancement to full professional application process according to the processes and instructions in this document.