Southeastern Louisiana University regularly evaluates the effectiveness of all faculty members, beginning with the hiring process and continuing throughout each year of employment.
Southeastern's Hiring Process
Southeastern Louisiana University begins evaluating the potential effectiveness of each faculty member during the hiring process. In accordance with guidelines specified by the University of Louisiana System in Part II, Chapter III, Section X. of its Board Rules, appointments to the academic staff must be based on qualifications and appropriateness of the individual to the work demand. All full-time and part-time faculty members hired to teach credit courses leading to a baccalaureate degree must meet stringent requirements before they can be considered for a position, as stated in Southeastern's Faculty Handbook (Part III, Section A). Minimum requirements are published in the job advertisement for the position.
In addition, English fluency must be demonstrated before an individual is hired for a teaching position. Each candidate for full-time employment must make an oral presentation before faculty and students in the department in which he/she is to teach. The presentation must be witnessed by the department head and two senior faculty members in order for a determination of fluency to be accomplished. Part-time faculty and graduate teaching fellows must also make an oral presentation to the department head and two senior faculty members in the department prior to appointment as a teaching fellow or lecturer. Guidelines for faculty evaluation are found in the Faculty Handbook (Part III, Section I). English fluency is evaluated periodically thereafter by classroom observation and by documentation of the faculty member's scores on the Student Opinion of Teaching surveys (SOT).
Annual Faculty Evaluations
As stipulated by the University of Louisiana System
, all full-time faculty members are evaluated at least annually. Part III, Section E
of the Faculty Handbook
describes the procedures for evaluation as well as the elements of evaluation, levels of performance expected, and timelines for reports to be submitted. In addition, the processes for remediation of tenured faculty and academic dismissal of tenured faculty are also delineated on pages 4 and 5 of this section.
By April 1 of each year, every full-time faculty member provides a report of teaching/job effectiveness, professional activity, and service to the department head. The evaluation takes place in a conference between the faculty member and the department head. At this time, the department head gives the faculty member suggestions for improvement in the coming years. Particular care is taken in assisting non-tenured faculty members in their progress toward tenure. The department head's written report is sent to the faculty member, who may then submit a response. By May 15 of each year, a copy of the department head's evaluation and any response by the faculty member is sent to the dean of the college. The dean will submit a written verification to the Provost that the evaluation for each faculty member is accomplished.
All academic departments have written criteria on which faculty year-end evaluations are based. Departmental committees regularly review and update performance standards based on state and university standards, as well as individual department expectations. All departmental faculty evaluation procedures must be reviewed and approved by the dean and the Provost. Departmental criteria are expected to reflect the unique missions of each academic department as well as the overall Unversity expectation for quality faculty. For example, the Department of Human Development in the College of Education and Human Development houses both graduate and undergraduate faculty, and includes several instructors in the Family and Consumer Science Program. As indicated in the general instructions of the department's Annual Faculty Evaluation, there are separate evaluation criteria for tenure-track faculty and instructors, although all must meet acceptable levels of performance as outlined in the Faculty Handbook (Part III, Section E, see page 3). The evaluation instrument of the Department of Management in the College of Business and Technology is an example of a typical yearly evaluation that specifies the teaching, scholarly productivity, and service outcomes expected in the department.
Student Opinion of Teaching
Student Opinion of Teaching surveys (SOT) are instruments used by students to evaluate faculty in each class each semester. There are both quantitative and narrative components of the SOT. The Office of Institutional Research and Assessment collects the data, and reports the results of the quantitative data to both the faculty member and the department head. This portion of the SOT is used annually in year-end evaluations as indicators of teaching effectiveness, and cumulatively for tenure and promotion decisions. The narrative component is sent to the individual faculty member to provide information for improving both course delivery and content.
Tenure and Promotion Guidelines and Post-Tenure Review
Guidelines for tenure and promotion are stated in the Faculty Handbook (Part III, Section H)
and include categories for teaching/job effectiveness, professional activity, and service (academic citizenship). Tenure and promotion decisions are based on yearly evaluations following both University guidelines and specific guidelines of the department. Tenure is granted only to those who hold the rank of assistant professor or higher and who have demonstrated excellence in either teaching/job effectiveness or in professional activity. Yearly evaluations establish progress toward meeting departmental, college, and university goals for tenure and promotion. Timelines and procedures for reviews for tenure and promotion begin on page 8, Part III, Section H of the Faculty Handbook.
Departmental annual evaluation procedures apply to all faculty including those who have been tenured. During the year-end evaluation process, if the department head documents the overall performance of any tenured faculty member as inadequate for two consecutive years, or for three out of any five consecutive years, a remediation plan must be implemented. Failure to complete remediation may result in the academic dismissal of the faculty member. This process is documented on page 3, Part III, Section E of the Faculty Handbook.