The following is a suggested change to the current version of the Faculty Guide; the current version is printed following the suggested changes


SUBMITTED BY Harriett Amster, Chair, and members of the Special Projects Committee of the Faculty Senate: Donald W. Cantwell, Edward A. Cowan, Ramez A. Elmasri, and Elaine L. Wilmore.



I. Annual Review of all Faculty

All UT Arlington faculty are evaluated annually according to established written criteria reflecting a) teaching effectiveness, b) scholarly, professional, and research accomplishments, and c) service to the institution, community, and the scholarly profession. These criteria, which are established by the faculty in each department or equivalent unit, subject to administrative approval by the Dean, Provost, and President, are made available to each faculty member. Each faculty member is required to submit an annual report, a summary of student evaluations of teaching for each course taught, and other evidence of professional activity, e.g., advising, student research supervision, research, publication, creative activities, service, grants, and awards.

Each department or equivalent unit is to determine whether the faculty member is performing at or above a minimum satisfactory level relative to the established criteria. The department chair or equivalent is to inform each faculty member of the result of this annual review, including an assessment of strengths and weaknesses.


Every sixth year following tenure, tenured faculty are to receive a cumulative (post-tenure) review (covering the previous 6 years), conducted by the department Chair or equivalent. The review of tenured faculty members who have administrative appointments will be conducted by a five-person departmental evaluation committee. Further information relevant to this special case and other cases in which faculty have joint appointments or are members of schools or centers rather than departments may be found in the Handbook of Operating Procedures. All eligible faculty are to be given at least six months prior notice by the department Chair or equivalent (Provost?). The faculty member is to submit a resume, the materials submitted for annual reviews for the past five years, and any additional materials deemed appropriate. The same criteria as used for annual reviews are to be employed. A written report of the outcome of the Dean's evaluation is to be given to the faculty member and placed in the relevant personnel file.

When the evaluation is below the minimum satisfactory level, the faculty member may request an additional evaluation from a department (or equivalent) or college evaluation committee each of which must consist of at least five members. Further details concerning the selection of the evaluation committees and review of special categories of faculty, are to be found in the Handbook of Operating Procedures. The Dean or college evaluation committee may reverse departmental decisions for good reason and shall communicate these in writing to the Chief Academic Officer and the faculty member.

The results of the sixth-year evaluation will be communicated by the Dean to all relevant parties and based upon the outcome, the following may occur:

1. Faculty members performing above the minimum level may be recommended for merit raises, awards, and/or other forms of recognition. Steps which may be taken in the event a faculty member is found to be performing unsatisfactorily are to be found in the Handbook of Operating Procedures.

2. For faculty members whose performance indicates they would benefit, A the evaluation may be used to provide support, e.g., teaching effectiveness support, research mentoring, service-expectation counseling.

3. For individuals performing unsatisfactorily, a review to determine if good cause exists for termination under the current Regents Rules and Regulations may be considered. All proceedings for termination of tenured faculty on the basis of periodic performance evaluation shall be only for incompetence, neglect of duty or other good cause and conducted in accordance with procedures of the Regents Rules and Regulations, Part One, Chapter III, Section 6.


The sixth-year evaluation may not be waived but, under special and rare circumstances may be deferred for no longer than one year. It will be phased in beginning with the 1998-99 academic year. AA faculty member will be evaluated on a six-year cycle determined by the academic year of his or her last comprehensive review. Further responsibilities and duties of administrative officers concerning the implementation of this policy are delineated in the Handbook of Operating Procedures. The evaluation is not intended A to infringe on the tenure system, academic freedom, due process or other protected rights, nor to establish new term-tenure systems or to require faculty to reestablish their credentials for tenure.


N.B. The above statement is based upon the text of the Handbook of Operating Procedures, Sec. 6-702, PERIODIC PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF TENURED FACULTY, 05/98.

Bold text indicates deviation from the Handbook of Operating Procedures and restates the earlier Handbook of Operating Procedures, Sec 6-701 or added by the committee.


FACULTY EVALUATION (Current Version in the Faculty Guide)

All UT Arlington faculty, whether tenured or not and whether full time or part time, are subject to being evaluated annually. Such evaluations are to be independent of specific personnel decisions (e.g., tenure, promotion, salary adjustments), although the results of evaluations should be an important factor in making these decisions. Following the guidelines set forth in this section, departments and other institutional components are required to develop detailed procedures for evaluating their respective faculties.

Tenured faculty are evaluated annually by the Department Chair or other appropriate administrative official. In addition, every four years, tenured faculty are evaluated more extensively to include some comprehensive form of student input. Peer review, both internal and external, and some type of self-evaluation are encouraged in the more extensive evaluation procedure.

Tenure track faculty are evaluated annually by a faculty committee and by the Department Chair or an equivalent administrator. Some type of student involvement is expected to be a part of the evaluation. Evaluative materials used are to be complete enough to allow a judgment about the overall accomplishments of the faculty being evaluated since the preceding evaluation.

Tenured and tenure-earning faculty being evaluated are to be informed of the procedures and type of information to be used in making the evaluation. Part-time and other non-tenure earning faculty are evaluated at least annually as prescribed by the department, school, or college concerned.

Three factors will be given primary consideration in the evaluation of tenured faculty and faculty holding tenure track appointments. These factors, as stated in the Handbook of Operating Procedures, Sec. 6-701, are :

1. Teaching effectiveness,

2. Scholarly and professional accomplishments, and

3. Personal service to the institution.

Each UT Arlington component is responsible for the interpretation and application of these three factors to their respective tenure and tenure-track faculties.

Part-time and nontenure-track faculty, on the other hand, are evaluated on teaching effectiveness, institutional service, or other considerations relevant to performance in their faculty positions.

Each Department Chair or equivalent is responsible for preparing a report of each annual evaluation, the exact nature and format of this report being left to the discretion of the Department Chair. Reports on tenured and tenure-track faculty are submitted to the appropriate academic Dean for review and then forwarded to the President through the Provost. Reports on nontenure-track faculty are retained by the Department Chair unless otherwise specified by the Dean.