It is the policy of the Kansas Board of Regents that merit increases for faculty shall be based on the annual evaluation of their performance as it relates to the mission of the institution, college/school and department.  The Board of Regents holds the state university chief executive officers accountable for the development and implementation of evaluation systems in accordance with the following guidelines:

a.  Faculty evaluation criteria, procedures and instruments shall be developed through faculty participation in each department, college or division and recorded to express the performance expectations of faculty therein.  Criteria, procedures and instruments shall be:

i.  Sufficiently flexible to meet the objectives of the unit.

ii.  Sensitive to multi-year faculty activities and outcomes.

iii.  Approved by the chief academic officer of each university.

iv.  Compatible with contemporary research and scholarly literature on faculty evaluation.  For example, assessment of research, where research is part of the job assignment, should ordinarily include but not be limited to information on the quality of the research, the amount of research, the media in which findings were disseminated, and the reception and importance of the research.  Similarly, the assessment of teaching, where teaching is part of the job assignment, should ordinarily include but not be limited to student ratings secured anonymously under standard conditions on norm-referenced instruments that adjust for initial student motivation, assessment of syllabi, and assessment of instructional materials.

b.  Each state university shall make available to faculty a ratings instrument for securing student ratings of instruction in all appropriate courses.  The instrument must be norm-referenced and corrected for major sources of bias as demonstrated by research.

c.  The evaluation of faculty performance and expectations for the future shall be discussed with them.  Documentation recording the sense of the discussion shall be provided to the faculty member.

i.  The faculty member shall be given the opportunity to add comments to the documentation as part of the official record before it is considered at the next higher administrative level.

ii.  Each state university shall establish a procedure by which faculty who disagree with their evaluation may request a review.

d.  Each state university shall implement a plan to supplement its annual faculty evaluation system, and shall adopt and implement a post-tenure review plan consistent with this policy.  Each plan shall include procedures and strategies for the following:

i.  Training of departmental chairpersons in the administration of faculty evaluation.

ii.  Linkage of the outcomes of faculty evaluation with assistance for renewal and development and, when necessary, reassignment and other personnel actions.

iii.  Training and supervision of graduate teaching assistants.

iv.  Regular post-tenure review.  The primary purpose of this post-tenure review process is to assist faculty members with identifying opportunities that will enable them to reach their full potential for contribution to the university.  Such review is intended to provide a longer term perspective than is usually provided by an annual review.  The expectation is that each tenured faculty member will be assessed five to seven years after award of tenure, and reviews will continue at intervals of five to seven years unless interrupted by a further review for promotion.  This review shall be in addition to, not in lieu of, annual evaluations.