Skip to content Skip to main navigation Report an accessibility issue

Procedure for Annual Performance and Planning Review (APPR)

  1. Preparation for the APPR: The department head manages the process of annual review of tenured and tenure-track faculty in a timely way to ensure compliance with all deadlines for submission of the review forms to the dean and chief academic officer. Colleges may establish their own calendars for the APPR process as long as they do not conflict with this handbook or the Faculty Evaluation Calendar, as published by the chief academic officer. In the event of a conflict, this handbook or the Faculty Evaluation Calendar governs.
    1. Adequate Notice to Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty Members: The department head will inform the departmental faculty of the schedule for the reviews, any materials that should be prepared and submitted for the reviews, and schedule the annual review conference with each tenured and tenure-track faculty member at least two weeks in advance of the date of the conference to allow faculty adequate notice to prepare the required materials.
    2. Documents Prepared by the Faculty Member: The faculty member prepares and submits the following documents in advance of the conference with the department head:
      1. Summary of the past year’s plans and goals developed at the previous year’s annual review;
      2. A standardized faculty activity report, downloaded from the university’s faculty activity reporting system, delineating activities in teaching, research/scholarship/creative activity, and service for the evaluation period.
      3. A list of specific plans and goals for the upcoming year;
      4. A current curriculum vitae; and
      5. any additional documentation requested by the department head or required by departmental or collegiate bylaws that evidences the faculty member’s activities during the evaluation period, which may include information supporting accomplishments in teaching, research/scholarship/creative activity, and service.Collegiate or departmental bylaws may require that less extensive additional documentation be submitted by a tenured faculty member who (i) received an overall rating in his or her most recent annual review indicating that his or her performance meets, exceeds, or far exceeds expectations for rank and (ii) is not under an Enhanced Post-Tenure Performance Review (as described in section 3.8.5 of this handbook). A faculty member meeting the criteria set forth in clauses (i) and (ii) of the preceding sentence is in “Good Standing.”
  1. The Department Head’s Evaluation. The faculty member and the department head have a scheduled conference (a) to discuss the faculty member’s (i) goals for the previous year and (ii) accomplishments during the evaluation period and (b) to formulate goals for the faculty member for the coming year. The department head documents his or her review of each faculty member on the Faculty Review System, with attachments if as necessary.The department head’s evaluation will rely on and include only documented and substantiated information available to the department head at the time of the review and will not be based on rumor or speculation. The review will be based on procedures and standards set forth in this handbook and all applicable bylaws.
    1. Assigning ratings for the faculty member’s performance: The department head indicates on the online Faculty Review System whether the performance of the faculty member for the entire evaluation period far exceeds expectations for rank, exceeds expectations for rank, meets expectations for rank, falls short of meeting expectations for rank, or falls far short of meeting expectations for rank, based on previously established objectives for that faculty member and departmental bylaws (including the department’s criteria for the various ratings at the different ranks). The head assigns a rating for each category of effort and also assigns a rating for the faculty member’s overall performance. The overall rating is not necessarily an average of the ratings for each category;
    2. Progress and Performance Narrative: The department head writes a narrative describing and discussing the faculty member’s progress on the previous year’s goals; the performance of the faculty member in the areas of teaching, research/scholarship/creative activity, and service during the evaluation period;
      1. Exception to the requirement for a Progress and Performance Narrative: The department head may, but is not required to, write a Progress and Performance Narrative for a faculty member in any year in which the faculty member is in Good Standing, unless (i) the faculty member requests that the department head write a Progress and Performance Narrative in that year or (ii) it has been three years since the department head has written a Progress and Performance Narrative for that faculty member.
    3. Department head’s signature: Upon completing the APPR for an individual faculty member, the department head signs the review, at which point it is transmitted to the faculty member for his or her review.
    4. Faculty member’s review of the APPR and right to submit a written response: The faculty member shall be allowed 14 days from the date of receipt of notice that the department head has signed the APPR to review the APPR and submit any written response. The response should be uploaded to the Faculty Review System, where it will be accessible to the department head, the dean, and the chief academic officer. If the faculty member fails to upload a response within 14 days, she or he relinquishes the right to respond.
    5. Faculty member’s signature. The faculty member signs the APPR. The faculty member’s signature indicates that he or she has read the review, but the signature does not necessarily imply agreement with the Progress and Performance Narrative, performance evaluation, or other contents.
  1. The Dean’s Review of the APPR.
    1. Reviewing and signing the APPR. The dean or the dean’s proxy reviews the APPRs submitted by each department head and signs them in the Faculty Review System, indicating either concurrence with or dissent from the department head’s rating of each faculty member.
      1. Dissent from the department head’s rating. In cases where the dean does not concur with the department head’s rating, the dean (i) assigns a different rating, indicating whether the performance of the faculty member far exceeds expectations for rank, exceeds expectations for rank, meets expectations for rank, falls short of meeting expectations for rank, or falls far short of meeting expectations for rank, based on previously established objectives for that faculty member and departmental bylaws (including the department’s criteria for the various ratings at the different ranks), and (ii) prepares a written rationale summarizing the reasons for his or her dissent from the department head’s rating. The dean’s rating and rationale is recorded in the Faculty Review System, where it is available to the faculty member, the department head, and the chief academic officer.
    2. Faculty member’s and department head’s right to respond. The faculty member and the department head each shall be allowed 14 days from the date of receipt of notice of the dean’s final rating and rationale to submit a written response. Any responses should be uploaded to the Faculty Review System, where they will be accessible to all participants in the APPR. If no response is received after 14 days from the date of receipt of the dean’s rating and rationale, the faculty member and department head relinquish the right to respond.
  1. Chief Academic Officer’s Review of the APPR. The chief academic officer or the chief academic officer’s proxy reviews the APPR, indicates a final decision on the rating to be assigned to the faculty member (far exceeds expectations for rank, exceeds expectations for rank, meets expectations for rank, falls short of meeting expectations for rank, or falls far short of meeting expectations for rank) and signs the APPRs in the Faculty Review System. In cases where the chief academic officer does not concur with the rating given by the dean, the chief academic officer (a) assigns a different rating, indicating whether the performance of the faculty member far exceeds expectations for rank, exceeds expectations for rank, meets expectations for rank, falls short of meeting expectations for rank, or falls far short of meeting expectations for rank, based on previously established objectives for that faculty member and departmental bylaws (including the department’s criteria for the various ratings at the different ranks), and (b) prepares a narrative summarizing the reasons for his or her dissent from the dean’s rating. The faculty member, the dean, and the department head have access to the chief academic officer’s rating and rationale through the Online Faculty Review System.
  1. Fully Executed APPR and Faculty Member’s Right to Appeal. The chief academic officer’s signature signals that the APPR is fully executed. Any required APPR Improvement Plan or EPPR are subsequent to the fully executed review. For rules governing the APPR Improvement Plan, see the appropriate appendix to this handbook. The faculty member’s right to appeal the final APPR rating is described in section 3.8.3 of this handbook. Any appeals run concurrently with required APPR Improvement Plans or EPPR.