The following faculty members should receive annual performance reviews:
- Tenured faculty
- Tenure-eligible faculty
- Career-track faculty (including all professors of practice, research professors, lecturer, and instructor)
Faculty with “adjunct” and “visiting” in their titles and those on a limited-term status do not require reviews unless department heads would like to complete them.
Reviews of faculty with split appointments are carried out in the primary department but should include input from the secondary department.
Heads/directors of academic units will be reviewed by their supervising administrator. For faculty members who have other administrative appointments (e.g., center directors), reviews of their administrative performance will be conducted by their supervising administrator. Other aspects of their performance (i.e., their non-administrative workload) will be reviewed in their home departments.
Keep the following points in mind as you conduct the APR process.
1. All faculty members outlined on the top of this page, including those on sabbatical, must be reviewed. Departments should evaluate sabbatical work in terms of workload assignment (as a percentage of overall workload) for the year under review. In most cases, sabbatical work constitutes a 100% research assignment for the period during the leave, or some combination of research and service.
2. If a faculty member is tenure-eligible, heads/directors should provide feedback about the faculty member's progress toward tenure and promotion. If a faculty member is undergoing a retention/third-year review, this feedback will be more formally documented as part of that process. These faculty members should still receive an APR during the retention review year to document ratings specific to their performance in the past year.
3. Each APR will emphasize performance in the current year, while also considering teaching effectiveness, service contributions, and research productivity over the past three to five calendar years (or time since initial appointment for faculty members appointed more recently).
4. When a faculty member holds an appointment that involves an administration assignment, the related duties will be assessed by a supervising administrator, while the faculty member’s teaching, research, and other service duties will be considered through appropriate peer review.
5. As it relates to workload,
- In some cases, faculty members will have responsibilities that differ from the 40-40-20 norm, for example, when they are on sabbatical or leave, have significant administrative assignments, or make other arrangements with the department or program head. Similarly, career-track faculty will also have workload agreements that vary from the 80-20 norm. When faculty have such arrangements, the formula for arriving at an overall score will be adjusted accordingly.
- Any negotiated variation from the 40/40/20 allocation, particularly for tenure-eligible faculty, should be noted and explained in the annual review of each faculty member.
6. Performance review outcomes:
- All faculty members who are found to be performing overall at the level of “meets expectations” or above in the annual performance review may be eligible for any awards which may exist or be established at the departmental, college, or university levels. (UHAP 3.2)
- Faculty who fail to provide the documentation necessary for the annual review will automatically receive an overall rating of unsatisfactory, unless the head determines that good cause exists for an exception.
- Please refer to the following UHAP policies regarding faculty who receive unsatisfactory ratings:
- UHAP 3.2.04: Unsatisfactory Ratings of Career-Track and Tenure-Eligible Faculty
- UHAP 3.2.05: Unsatisfactory Ratings of Tenured Faculty
7. Faculty members who disagree with their annual performance review may follow the appeal process outlined in UHAP 3.2.03.
For additional information regarding university-governed processes, please refer to the following links:
- Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs: Annual Performance Reviews and Post-tenure Reviews
- ABOR 6-211
- UHAP 3.2
The College of Education College Council is an elected group of faculty, staff, undergraduate and graduate students and serves as the primary vehicle of shared governance in the College. The council is charged with advising the dean of the College of Education on general issues affecting faculty, staff and students. Also, the council shall bring matters of interest arising among the faculty, staff, and students to the attention of the Dean.
Career Track faculty who have been employed in the College of Education for a six-year period are eligible to take a Professional Development Leave to further any of the following objectives: teaching improvement; research and publication; and/or integration and interpretation of existing knowledge relevant to the faculty member’s professional responsibilities.
To submit an application for a professional development leave, Career Track faculty need to follow the same procedures and application for a sabbatical leave for tenure track faculty, noting on the application that the request is for a professional development leave.
The college deadline of November 1st is firm.
This section applies to the promotion and tenure review processes for tenure-eligible faculty, tenured faculty, and career-track faculty. The levels of review include:
- Tenure-eligible and Tenured faculty
- Career-track faculty (professors of practice and research professors)
- Career-track faculty (lecturer series)
The University of Arizona Handbook for Appointed Personnel (UHAP) sets forth the official policies regarding the duties and responsibilities of faculty at The University of Arizona.
UHAP 3.3, Promotion and Tenure, serves as a reference for the development of the College of Education's promotion and tenure criteria and procedures in teaching, research, creative activity, service and outreach. These criteria and procedures (see attached) are followed by all academic units in the college.
Each department or program, in turn, has unit-level criteria that are appropriate to the disciplines of its faculty. COE faculty may obtain unit-level information concerning the promotion and tenure process from their head or director.
At the end of each spring semester, the Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs publishes annual guidelines and checklists to use in preparing promotion and tenure dossiers. It is the responsibility of departments and candidates to ensure that the dossier is prepared according to the guidelines.
The Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs also holds workshops each spring designed to provide information about the promotion process. The workshops explain the university's review procedures and offers guidance on preparing the promotion and tenure dossier. All candidates for promotion and/or tenure, promotion committees, heads, and directors are encouraged to attend the workshops. A candidate for a third-year review will also find these workshops helpful in becoming acquainted with the dossier preparation requirements at The University of Arizona. The COE Dean's Office also offers workshops specifically for COE faculty.
Those materials are provided below so that promotion candidates can reference them when preparing their dossiers.
TENURE-ELIGIBLE AND TENURED FACULTY
CAREER-TRACK FACULTY (PROFESSOR OF PRACTICE)
- Professor of Practice Promotion Criteria revised Jan_22_2020
- Promotion calendar for Career-Track faculty 2021-2022
CAREER-TRACK FACULTY (RESEARCH PROFESSOR)
CAREER-TRACK FACULTY (LECTURER SERIES)
Retention / Third-Year Reviews
For tenure-eligible faculty, the annual performance review contains an assessment component addressing progress toward promotion and tenure. In addition, there is a third-year review. UHAP 3.3.01 and 3.3.02 contain information about this review.
No later than the end of the third year in rank (unless adjusted for any approved delays), tenure-eligible assistant professors will undergo a retention review. For retention reviews, departments may seek additional assessments from outside the department and/or University regarding a candidate's professional accomplishments, stature as viewed by peers, and scholarly potential. After that review, their administrative head will inform them that they are being recommended for reappointment as an assistant professor or for nonrenewal at the expiration of the subsequent year of service in rank. In some cases, assistant professors who are reappointed in rank may be required to undergo another retention review in the following year. If a decision is made to reappoint faculty members, their head must provide them with a written evaluation identifying any problem areas which may preclude the granting of tenure. Reappointment in rank may be made without college or University review, but all tenure-eligible assistant professors will be formally evaluated at this stage by their head and their unit's Standing Committee on Faculty Status. If an administrative head recommends that a faculty member not be reappointed after the departmental level review, the faculty member will be reviewed at the college and University level according to the process described in Section 3.3.02. A college may also require college review of all retention cases.
Within the College of Education, all third-year reviews must be completed at the college level no later than March 15th.
At the end of each spring semester, the Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs publishes guidelines and checklists to use in preparing dossiers. Because a third-year/retention review serves as a dress rehearsal for a promotion review, candidates and heads will use the same dossier templates used in a promotion and tenure dossier. It is the responsibility of departments and candidates to ensure that the dossier is prepared according to the Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs’ guidelines concerning dossier preparation.
The Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs also holds workshops each spring designed to provide information about the promotion process. The workshops explain the university's review process and offers guidance on presenting the promotion and tenure dossier. All candidates for promotion and/or tenure, promotion committees, heads, and directors are encouraged to attend the workshops. A candidate for a third-year review will also find these workshops helpful in becoming acquainted with the dossier preparation requirements at The University of Arizona. The COE Dean's Office also offers workshops specifically for COE faculty.
In accordance with university policies, sabbatical leave may be granted at the discretion of the administration in order to enable appointed personnel to make advances in their profession, to remain effective in their current positions, or to render the greatest possible service to the University of Arizona. Sabbatical leaves are calculated on an academic-year basis. A faculty member who takes a sabbatical in a particular academic year (Fall, Spring, or full academic year) does not begin accumulating time towards the next sabbatical until the following academic year.
The University Handbook for Appointed Personnel 8.03.02 explains the university’s sabbatical policy in detail. It specifies that sabbatical leaves may only be granted to appointed personnel who have served on full-time continuous fiscal or academic year appointments at the university for a period of not less than six years. Only individuals with tenure or continuing status are eligible for sabbatical leave. Leaves of absence without pay totaling no more than one year may be counted toward a sabbatical leave. Time served in excess of six years may not be accumulated toward future sabbaticals. To determine eligibility please contact the Dean’s Office at 621-1081 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
In the fall of each year, a memorandum is sent by the Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs to all academic deans initiating the sabbatical process. The College of Education Dean’s Office initiates the sabbatical application and review process within the college immediately after the memorandum is received. All sabbatical leave applications within the College of Education should be submitted following the instructions provided by the Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs. The applications are reviewed at the unit level by the Head or Director, who provides an assessment of the applicant’s project and a recommendation concerning the request for sabbatical leave. Heads and Directors are also responsible for ensuring that the sabbatical application is complete before presentation for college-level review. Please refer to attached message from the COE Dean’s Office concerning sabbatical leave applications and the items required for a complete file. Incomplete applications at the departmental level should not be forwarded to the college level. The college deadline of November 1st is firm.
University policy requires that each college have a Sabbatical Review Committee consisting of at least three people. Within COE, the college-level review process begins after November 1st, the date by which Heads and Directors are to present sabbatical leave requests to the Dean’s Office. The college-level Sabbatical Review Committee provides its assessment and recommendation to the Dean by December 11th. COE applicants will be notified of the college-level decision in writing, usually no later than January 1st. Successful sabbatical leave applications are then reported to the Office of the Vice Provost. A candidate whose sabbatical proposal is rejected at the college level has the right to appeal to the university's Sabbatical Leave Advisory Committee.
A report documenting the sabbatical activities must be filed with the Dean’s Office to be forwarded to the Office of the Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs no later than the end of the second semester following a sabbatical leave.