19.0 II-1.19 UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SYSTEM POLICY ON THE
COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF TENURED FACULTY
Approved by the Board of Regents, July 12, 1996
Preamble
The Board of Regents of the University of Maryland System (UMS)
established the principle of faculty evaluation in its policy on
Evaluation of Performance of Faculty (II-1.20) and the principle
of accountability for faculty workload and performance in its
policy on Faculty Workload and Responsibilities (II-1.25). To
coordinate and implement these principles, the Board of Regents
requires that each institution shall establish a policy on the
comprehensive review of tenured faculty, and procedures to
implement such a policy. Policies and procedures already in
place assure that untenured faculty receive mandated
comprehensive reviews. This policy establishes a requirement for
the comprehensive review, at regular intervals, of faculty on
indefinite tenure appointments.
Comprehensive review of faculty shall be part of a larger faculty
development program at each institution, designed to enhance the
professional abilities of the faculty as teachers and scholars
and members of the academic community. To enable the
comprehensive review process, institutions shall commit resources
not only to the process itself, but also to its accompanying
faculty development program.
General Principles/Criteria
The specifics of comprehensive review policies and procedures
should be left open to the institutions, within the limits of
reasonable consistency across the UMS, in order to take into
account individual missions, cultures, and traditions.
At the same time, the policies and procedures of each constituent
institution shall include provision for the following:
1. Each tenured faculty member shall be subject to periodic
comprehensive reviews that assess the faculty member's
performance.
2. Comprehensive review shall be a formative process for future
faculty development, for enhancing the learning environment
of students, and for the improvement of the academic program
to which the faculty member contributes.
3. Comprehensive review shall be conducted as a process of
collegial assessment, take place at the department/unit
level, and be consistent with the general principles of peer
review. Each institution shall determine the appropriate
level at which such review shall take place. Institutional
policies and procedures shall address specifically the
elements of peer review, including the responsibilities of
the faculty member to the review, the process of review to
be conducted by department/unit colleagues, and the roles of
the department/unit chair, dean and provost (or other
appropriate senior academic officer). Department/unit
policies and procedures shall be filed with and approved by
the dean and provost (or other appropriate senior academic
officer).
4. The comprehensive review shall include an evaluation of
instruction, research/scholarship, and service.
Institutional policies and procedures shall be consistent
with the preservation of academic freedom and shall include
specific criteria to assess the expectations of faculty
performance over time.
5. Each tenured faculty member shall be reviewed at least once
every five years. Each review shall evaluate the faculty
member's performance since the last review. Annual salary
and workload reviews may be used as part of the
comprehensive review. Two consecutive annual reviews that
indicate that a faculty member is materially deficient in
meeting expectations* shall occasion an immediate
comprehensive review, which shall be in addition to those
otherwise required by this policy. [NOTE: *Quantitative
workload "expectations" are clarified in section IV.
Standard Workload Expectations of the BOR Policy on Faculty
Workload and Responsibilities (II-1.25). Qualitative
performance expectations shall be determined at the
department/unit level.]
6. While the faculty member shall be a principal provider of
the review materials, multiple sources of information shall
be used as the basis for the evaluation.
7. A favorable periodic review shall be conveyed to the faculty
member, and, where possible, shall be considered in
decisions on promotion, merit pay, and other rewards.
8. If a faculty member's performance is judged as not meeting
expectations, a specific development plan shall be worked
out among the dean, department/unit, and the individual
faculty member, consistent with the overall faculty
development programs and resources of the individual campus.
This plan shall include a procedure for evaluation of
progress at fixed intervals and shall be signed by all
parties.
9. The faculty member being reviewed shall have access to
summary written reports and shall have ample opportunity to
respond to such reports in a formal way.
10. This comprehensive review process may not be substituted for
the UMS and institutional policies and procedures relating
to the termination of tenured appointments, which are in no
way amended by this policy.
11. Each institution shall develop policies and procedures
consistent with this policy. Institutional policies and
procedures for periodic review shall not duplicate other
existing institutional policies and procedures.
12. The UMS policy on comprehensive review, and any
institutional policies and procedures on comprehensive
review, are in addition to other UMS and institutional
policies and procedures concerning faculty evaluation and/or
termination.
13. Institutional policies and procedures shall be approved by
the Chancellor and be filed with the Office of the
Chancellor.
Revised
AAAC, March 5, 1996
Revised Chancellor's Council, May 6, 1996
Approved by the Attorney General for form and legal sufficiency.
x:\Regents\policies\II-1.19