Annual Evaluation of Faculty

Handbook of Operating Procedures 2-2151

Annual Evaluation of Faculty

University of Texas SealEffective March 10, 2016
Executive Sponsor: Executive Vice President and ProvostPolicy Owner: Sr. Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs
I. Policy Statement 

The University of Texas at Austin (“University”) is committed to periodic evaluation of faculty intended to enhance and protect, not diminish, the important guarantees of tenure and academic freedom. Annual reviews will focus primarily on individual merit relative to the performance of assigned duties. The annual evaluation is conducted to provide guidance for continuing and meaningful faculty development; to assist faculty in enhancing their professional skills and achieving their professional goals; to refocus academic and professional efforts, when appropriate; and to assure that faculty members are meeting their responsibilities to the University and the State of Texas.  Additionally, the annual review compares an individual’s performance to University and unit expectations and provides guidance to the faculty member accordingly.

II. Reason for Policy 

Regents’ Rules and Regulations, Rules 31102 and 30501 require each component institution to conduct an annual performance evaluation for all faculty.

III. Scope & Audience 

This policy applies to all faculty, deans, department chairs, and other academic administrators.

IV. Definitions (specific to this policy) 
V. Website (for policy)
VI. Contacts 
Contact Details Web
Office of the Executive Vice President and ProvostPhone:512-471-4363
VII. Responsibilities & Procedures 

Annual Reviews for Faculty


  1. Quality of Faculty. The University is a constitutionally mandated “university of the first class,” recognized nationally and internationally for the outstanding quality of its faculty. The faculty are thoroughly vetted when they are hired, retained, promoted, and tenured. Therefore, it is to be expected the results of annual reviews will show that the vast majority of faculty meet or exceed expectations.
  1. Importance of Tenure. The University affirms the time-honored practice of tenure as an important protection of free inquiry, open intellectual and scientific debate, and unfettered criticism of the accepted body of knowledge. Academic institutions have a special need for practices that protect freedom of expression, since the core of the academic enterprise involves a continual reexamination of ideas.

Nothing in this policy or the related review guidelines will be interpreted or applied to infringe on the tenure system, or on faculty members’ academic freedom, due process, or other rights.  Nothing in this policy will be interpreted as establishing a new term-tenure system, or requiring faculty members to reestablish their credentials for tenure on an annual basis.


  1. Annual Reviews. All faculty, tenured and non-tenured, will undergo annual reviews following the Guidelines for Annual Review of Faculty.  The review is to focus on individual merit relative to assigned responsibilities.
  1. Scheduled Reviews. Evaluation of active faculty will be performed annually. The evaluation may not be waived for any active faculty member but may be deferred in rare circumstances when the review period coincides with approved leave, comprehensive review for promotion, or appointment to an endowed position. No deferral of review of an active faculty member may extend beyond one year from the date of the scheduled review.
  1. Conducting Reviews. Evaluation of each faculty member’s performance will be determined and overseen by the departmental budget council, extended budget council, or executive committee but in any event must be reported to the department chair (or equivalent) and dean for review.
  1. Responsibilities Reviewed. The evaluation will include review of the faculty member's professional responsibilities in teaching, research, service; and when applicable, patient care, and administration. The Guidelines for Annual Review of Faculty will detail the criteria and factors to be evaluated.
  1. Materials Submitted. The faculty member being evaluated must submit a curriculum vita, including a summary statement of professional accomplishments, and must submit or arrange for the submission of teaching evaluations. The faculty member may provide copies of a statement of professional goals, a proposed professional development plan, and any other additional materials the faculty member deems appropriate.
  1. Review Categories.  Each faculty member being reviewed will be placed in one of the following categories: a) exceeds expectations; b) meets expectations; c) does not meet expectations; or d) unsatisfactory.  Expectations will be set according to the faculty member’s rank, discipline, and department or unit.  These ratings will be based on a holistic review and overall judgment of the faculty member’s activities.
  1. Communication of Results.  Results of the evaluation will be communicated in writing to the faculty member and to appropriate members of the administration.  The faculty member may include a written statement, which will be added to the official record.
  1. Developmental Assistance.  Individuals whose annual review or performance at any time indicates they would benefit from developmental assistance will be placed on a developmental support plan and referred to available institutional support, such as teaching effectiveness assistance, counseling, or mentoring in research issues/service expectations.  Schools/colleges and/or departments, in consultation with a budget council, executive committee, or similar peer committee, will monitor individuals receiving developmental assistance for evidence of improvement, and if there is insufficient improvement, will take action as provided under  VII.C.8 or VII.D below, if appropriate.
  1. Unsatisfactory Performance.  Individuals whose performance is unsatisfactory for two consecutive annual reviews may be subject to a comprehensive review or disciplinary action under VII.D below, if appropriate.
  1. Appeals.  An unsatisfactory rating may be appealed according to the procedures set forth in the Guidelines for Annual Review of Faculty.  
  1. Termination or Other Appropriate Disciplinary Action.  If incompetence, neglect of duty, or other good cause is found, the dean will consider appropriate disciplinary action up to and including termination under Regents’ Rules and Regulations, Rule 31008.
  1. Monitoring.  In its role as overseer of the faculty evaluation process, the Committee of Counsel on Academic Freedom and Responsibility will monitor this process and report its findings annually, will receive and advise on such problems or issues referred to it by any member of the faculty, the provost, the president, the Chancellor, or the Board of Regents, and will make whatever recommendations it considers appropriate to improve the process. 
XI. History 

Last review date March 2016

Next scheduled review: March 2018