Academic & Student Affairs Handbook

Procedural guide for implementing BoR policies related to Academic Affairs

4.7 Evaluation of Faculty

(Last Modified April 6, 2011)   Report a broken link


Each institution is responsible for establishing definite and stated criteria for faculty performance that are consistent with Regents’ policies and the statutes of the institution. These criteria must be stated in writing and available in a faculty handbook posted on an institution’s website. All changes to these performance criteria must be updated in the faculty handbook in a timely fashion. At a minimum, faculty evaluation systems must include the following:

  • Annual reviews (for faculty and senior administrators)

  • Pre-tenure progress reviews for faculty in their third year

  • Reviews of graduate teaching and laboratory assistants

  • Subordinate (one level down) reviews of senior administrators at least once every five years

  • Tenure reviews

  • Promotion reviews

  • Post-tenure reviews

The following steps should be made a part of all faculty evaluation systems:

  • The immediate supervisor will discuss with the faculty member in a scheduled conference the content of that faculty member’s annual written evaluation.

  • The faculty member will sign a statement to the effect that he/she has been apprised of the content of the annual written evaluation.

  • The faculty member will be given a specific period of time (e.g., 10 working days) to respond in writing to the annual written evaluation, with this response to be attached to the evaluation.

  • The immediate supervisor will acknowledge in writing his/her receipt of this response, noting changes, if any, in the annual written evaluation made as a result of either the conference or the faculty member’s written response. This acknowledgement will also become a part of the records.

4.7.1 Renewal and Nonrenewal of Contracts of Non-tenured Faculty

(Last Modified December 7, 2012)   Report a broken link

Effective Date: October 15, 2008

As of October 15, 2008, institutions are no longer required to provide written notice of renewal of contract to non-tenured faculty with the rank of instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, or professor. Faculty with the rank of instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, or professor, who are employed under written contract, and who served full-time for the entire previous year, have the presumption of renewal for the next academic year unless notified in writing, by the president of an institution or his/her authorized representative, of the intent not to renew.

Procedures to be followed when a non-tenured faculty member’s contract is not renewed are specified in BOR Policy 8.3.4. Deadlines for notice of nonrenewal vary depending on the length of service of the non-tenured faculty member. The Attorney General advises USG institutions not to give reasons for nonrenewal of contracts to the faculty member.

Sample form letters are provided for use in the following circumstances:

  1. Sample Letter 1. The President issues a letter to his/her designated representative authorizing him/her to notify non-tenured faculty that no new contract will be offered. This form must be used whenever someone other than the President gives notice of nonrenewal.

  2. Sample Letter 2. The President’s designated representative issues a letter to the non-tenured faculty member notifying him/her that no new contract will be offered.

  3. Sample Letter 3. The President issues a letter directly to the non-tenured faculty member notifying him/her that no new contract will be offered. (This form may be used by the President regardless of whether authorization for nonrenewal has been given to anyone.)

WARNING: A letter similar to Sample Letter 1 must be used whenever the President’s representative issues the notice of nonrenewal. Some courts have held that in the absence of specific written authorization from the President, the notice of nonrenewal is deficient and subjects the sender to damages.

Also, the courts have held that a “conditional” notice of nonrenewal is not sufficient. For example, nonrenewals may not be conditioned on some future eventuality such as promotion, tenure, vacancies, etc.

4.7.2 Faculty Work in the Schools

(Last Modified April 12, 2011)   Report a broken link


The BOR values USG faculty engagement with K-12 schools. BOR Policy 8.3.15 states BOR expectation for faculty engagement with the public schools in institutions that prepare teachers. The Board expects presidents, provosts, academic vice presidents, and deans of colleges of education and arts and sciences in institutions that prepare teachers to advocate for, assess, recognize, and reward practices consistent with this policy.

Faculty effort under the provisions of this policy is anticipated in teaching, scholarship, and/or service. The USG values all types of faculty scholarship, including the Scholarship of Discovery, the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, and the Scholarship of Engagement. All faculty members are encouraged to enhance their classroom instruction by using scholarly teaching. It also is important for faculty to assist in improving teaching quality and student learning in K-12 classrooms by service to the schools. Definitions and examples of these various activities are provided below for illustrative purposes. See examples of faculty work in each of the three categories – Teaching, Scholarship, and Service – in
Cases of Faculty Work in Teaching, Scholarship, and Service.


Definition: Scholarly teaching is teaching that focuses on student learning and is well grounded in the sources and resources appropriate to the field. The aim of scholarly teaching is to make transparent how faculty members have made learning possible (Shulman).

Evidence of Scholarly Teaching (under normal conditions, the expectation is that faculty will do all three):

  • Evidence that the faculty member reads the pedagogical literature, or attends instructional development sessions, in his/her own discipline and then branches out to the broader pedagogical literature
  • Evidence that the faculty member tries some of the teaching methods from the literature/instructional development sessions in his/her own classes
  • Evidence that the faculty member assesses whether or not he/she has been successful in increasing student learning by doing some formative evaluation with students, adjusting his/her approach, asking a peer to come into the class to review the changes he/she has implemented


The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

Definition: The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning is the “systematic examination of issues about student learning and instructional conditions which promote the learning (i.e., building on previous scholarship and shared concerns), which is subjected to blind review by peers who represent the judgment of the profession, and, after review, is disseminated to the professional community” (Research Universities Consortium for the Advancement of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning).

Evidence of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning:

  • Evidence that the faculty member’s scholarship in the schools or in the university classroom is public, peer reviewed, and critiqued
  • Evidence that the faculty member’s scholarship is exchanged with other members of professional communities through postings on websites, presentations to h/her department or college, presentations at professional conferences, and/or written up and published.
  • Evidence that the scholarship builds upon previous scholarship and shared concerns
  • Evidence that the scholarship contributes new questions and knowledge about teaching and learning

The Scholarship of Engagement

Definition: The Scholarship of Engagement in schools is characterized by the following:

  • It is to be conducted as an academic engagement with the public schools.
  • It is to involve the responsible application of knowledge, theory and/or conceptual framework to consequential problems.
  • It should test a research question or hypothesis.
  • One must be able to use the results to improve practice and inform further questions.
  • Resulting work should be available for dissemination for peer review of results.

(Glassick, Huber and Maeroff).

Evidence of the Scholarship of Engagement:

  • Evidence that the faculty member designs and implements a research agenda in at least one area of need recognized by the public schools
  • Evidence that the faculty member applies relevant knowledge toward resolution of the identified need
  • Evidence that the faculty member assesses the impact of the engagement
  • Evidence that the faculty member disseminates for peer review the results of the outreach

The Scholarship of Discovery

Definition: The Scholarship of Discovery is basic research in the disciplines including the creative work of faculty in the literary, visual, and performing arts. It is the “pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, a fierce determination to give free rein to fair and honest inquiry, wherever it may lead” (Glassick, Huber and Maeroff). It contributes to the stock of human knowledge in the academic disciplines.

Evidence of the Scholarship of Discovery:

  • Evidence that the faculty member’s research is innovative (as opposed to routine) as judged by peers at the institution and elsewhere
  • Evidence that the faculty member’s research represents quality, rather than mere quantity
  • Evidence of the faculty member’s publications in high quality refereed journals and the quality and quantity of citations and reprints of h/her research publications
  • If appropriate for the discipline, evidence of the ability to attract extramural funding
  • Evidence of invited seminars and presentations (abstracts), if travel funds are provided, are also an indication of the Scholarship of Discovery


Definition: service is outreach or engagement by higher education faculty for the purpose of contributing to the public good. Contributions to the public good may include faculty work that contributes to solutions to complex societal problems, to the quality of life of Georgia’s citizens, and to the advancement of public higher education. In the case of service to the public schools, the intent should be for the improvement of teaching quality and student learning. The following activities might be included in work with the schools: involvement in Learning Communities, workshops given based on need, collaborative development of courses, unit writing for the new Georgia Performance Standards, design of field experiences to support existing courses, engagement in co-observation / vertical alignment, etc.

Evidence of Service:

  • Evidence that the faculty member links his/her work in some way to public contemporary issues and/or to improving the quality of life.
  • Evidence that the faculty member, either through scholarly work and/or service, applies knowledge toward solutions to complex societal problems and human needs.
  • Evidence that the faculty member contributes to the continuous improvement of public higher education.
  • Evidence that the faculty member contributes in some way to the public good.

Works Cited

Glassick, C.E., M.T.Huber, and G.I. Maeroff. Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1996.

Research Universities Consortium for the Advancement of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Policies and Procedures Supporting the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in the Research University (Draft). Carnegie Consortium for the Advancement of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2005.

Shulman, Lee. “Course Anatomy: The Dissection and Analysis of Knowledge Through Teaching.” The Course Portfolio: How Faculty Can Examine their Teaching to Advance Practice and Improve Student Learning. Ed. P. Hutchings. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. 1998. 5-12.

↑ Top