/ Provost's Office

Evaluations

Faculty performance is evaluated with a more extensive review in the third year.

Annual Review

Download the Annual Review form 

Goal

The goal of the Annual Review is to provide an annual opportunity for the faculty member and department chair to review and reflect upon the faculty member’s work, in an effort to support and engender growth. Together, the faculty member and chair will discuss:

  • How chairs can best support faculty members in their ongoing work
  • How faculty members can best align their talents and efforts with the strategic objectives of Hope College
Details
  • Academic calendar time frame, in this case, it’s a longer time frame to adjust from calendar year to academic year — January 2018 through May 2019 (end of the spring semester)
  • Typical academic calendar review cycle will be summer, fall and spring terms — such as May 4, 2019–May 3, 2020
  • Review all full-time faculty
  • Chairpersons will receive training in March 2019 to effectively review faculty
  • This process will utilize FAR (Faculty Activity Reporting) data
  • The review document should be brief and not exhaustive; writing it should not be onerous for faculty and chairs to complete
  • Goals should be ambitious; in other words, setting realistic but challenging goals is encouraged
2019 Steps
  • Faculty will upload their individual FAR data by March 1, 2019 (including any known activity through the end of spring semester)
  • Faculty member will complete their annual review questions (section A) and submit to chair by March 25, 2019
  • In between March 25, 2019, and May 15, 2019:
    • Department chairs can set precise deadlines for the meeting dates, to suit his/her scheduling needs.
    • Department chair reads the faculty member’s FAR annual activity report and annual review materials, drafts the review (section B) before meeting in person with each full-time faculty member.
    • Department chair shares the document with the faculty member in the review meeting and receives feedback from the faculty in the meeting, which may lead to changes or revisions of the review (section B).
    • Once the written review is completed by the department chair and the review meeting has been held, the faculty will have one week to write and submit an optional faculty response to the review (in Section C). When the review document is complete, the faculty and chair will sign and date the form (and both will receive/retain electronic copies of the form).
    • Review document will be stored in the divisional dean’s electronic files (no later than June 1, 2019). Dean’s office confirms all annual review documents submitted by June 1, informing Provost’s office of its completion.
Merit Pay Guidelines
 

The listed criteria for merit were developed in consultation with the Deans’ Council and the Professional Interests Committee (PIC). A fourth criterion was added in 2007 that addresses contributions to the overall mission of the college. Some examples are provided below to assist you in case you choose to use this area to reinforce a merit recommendation. Although still broad, the criteria demonstrate that merit can and often should be awarded for activities other than scholarly works. If you have questions about an individual’s qualifications for merit, please consult with your dean.  

We hope to continue to follow the PIC’s past recommendations for the merit process: merit awards of $500 each given to approximately one-third of the faculty, allocated proportionally to the divisions based on their total full-time continuing faculty.

Department chairpersons will provide their dean with a paragraph which clearly documents the accomplishments of each person being recommended for merit pay. Please be brief and please identify the specific criteria on which your recommendation is being made. Merit implies that the person’s contributions have exceeded the normal expectations for a faculty member in that department/division.

Merit pay can be recommended for:

  • Exceptional scholarly contributions (as defined by that department or division) in the last one or two years or because of a long-term consistent contribution to scholarship that has never risen to the highest level in any one year but is still exemplary
  • Exceptional contributions to teaching excellence that go beyond the typical classroom excellence, e.g., providing leadership to pedagogical reform, creating courses that impact a broad segment of students (General Education/IDS), receiving national recognition for teaching or similar type activities
  • Making an exceptional service contribution, such as reorganization or revision of curricula, either in the major or the core, or similar college service
  • Making an exceptional contribution to the mission of the college; examples might include:
    • Success in moving the college toward greater engagement with its global learning goals
    • Active use of pedagogy that integrates faith and learning
    • Publishing papers and making public presentations that focus on the Christian dimension of academic excellence
    • Organizing speakers and/or programs that give particular emphasis to the college’s mission and goals
    • Bringing regional and national recognition to Hope’s mission to be exceptional in academics and faith

Department chairs will prioritize their recommendations for merit (if more than one) and each dean in turn will prioritize the divisional recommendations when they are sent to the Status Committee. The nomination of people across the spectrum of categories is strongly encouraged. Deans are asked to submit to the Status Committee a “balanced” slate of merit nominees that represent each merit category in roughly equal numbers. The Status Committee will make the final determination of merit awards and send recommendations to the president. Note that the Status Committee members will have access to the Service to Hope forms and can ask for review of candidates who either did not make the deans’ lists or did not rank high enough to fall in the 1/3 category. Hopefully, this will prevent someone who is meritorious from being missed in the overall process.  

Recommendations on merit will be made by the dean to the Status Committee; the Status Committee will then send a list of recommendations to President Voskuil. If the president disagrees with any of the Status Committee’s recommendations, he will meet with the committee and discuss his concerns. Ultimately, the final decision rests with the president.