Status Report Number 2
Faculty Evaluation and Development
Kansas State University
September 30, 1996

The original Faculty Evaluation and Development Report was submitted to the Board of Regents (BOR) on April 24, 1996. Copies of this report are available in the Office of the Provost. The report below, "Status Report Number 2, Faculty Evaluation and Development," is a response to questions raised by the BOR relative to the original report.

In response to the Board's questions (see the letter from Regent Nolan, July 29, 1996), additional materials related to faculty evaluation were developed. Three separate issues are addressed in the following sections. First, we provide a brief description of the annual evaluation process at Kansas State University. Second, we detail our response to those departments that are using locally developed student evaluation forms. Finally, we provide a detailed account of faculty development.

  1. The Annual Evaluation Process

    At Kansas State University the evaluation of faculty (and other unclassified individuals as well) is based on a series of events that have been established by the Faculty Senate in Section C. Evaluations are not conducted in a vacuum. The process is well defined and orderly and each department/unit has a set of guidelines that conform to the general requirements. There are three major types of evaluations that are outlined in the University Handbook -- Annual Merit, Tenure, and Promotion. The information collected and used for each purpose tends to overlap, but the decision processes that are based on the information are kept separate. To help understand the process and the related time lines, Attachment 1 provides a brief Calendar of Major Evaluation Events (adapted from a calendar published each year by the provost's office). The primary focus of this section will be on the annual merit evaluations.

    The major components of the annual merit evaluation process are outlined below. These generally are provided in the order in which they occur. The provost's office conducts annual reviews of evaluation materials to insure they conform to the requirements of the University Handbook and that evaluations are made equitably. We have included Attachment 2 with the applicable citations from the University Handbook.

    1. Each person "will meet annually with the unit head to jointly establish personal goals and objectives for the upcoming evaluation period and to discuss their relative importance within the context of the unit's goals" (C45.1).
      1. This typically occurs at the end of the prior year's evaluation and often concurrently with the meeting to discuss the evaluation.

      2. Setting goals and expectations is a critical step to insure that department/unit heads and faculty members have a clear understanding of the expectations and goals of the faculty member for the next evaluation period and the relative importance of various activities to their evaluation.

      3. The goals are to be based on the strengths and weaknesses of the individual and the needs and expectations of the department, the college, and the university. In general, it is not expected that all individuals in a department will have similar goals and objectives or give the same relative importance to these goals and objectives.

      4. The goals and expectations generally are in the areas of instruction, research (scholarship), extension, service, and other (e.g., administrative) and would guide the performance for the faculty member in these areas.

      5. The goals and expectations set in this annual meeting are individualized, based upon the knowledge of the department/unit head and departmental faculty about reasonable levels of productivity at that rank in that discipline. They also are established with the mutual knowledge of the minimal acceptable levels of productivity in that department. These minimums are now being developed and must have the approval of the department/unit head, dean, and provost (C31.5).


    2. If the assignments for an individual are changed during the evaluation year, then a corresponding change may need to be made in the goals and objectives.
      1. These changes are to be jointly discussed by the individual and the unit head and approved by the dean.

      2. Changes in the relative importance of areas reflect the time remaining in the evaluation year.


    3. Some departmental/unit systems require mid-year discussion of progress towards the goals.

    4. At the end of the evaluation period - "Each unclassified person will provide an annual written summary of accomplishments and activities in accordance with the guidelines provided by the unit's statement of criteria, standards, and procedures." (C45.2).

      1. While not explicitly stated, it is expected that the summary would be related to the goals and objectives.

      2. The summary is a major resource for the unit head's evaluation.


    5. After receiving the individual's annual written summary, the unit head will prepare a "written evaluation" (C46.4b).

      1. "Annual written evaluations conducted for the purpose of determining merit salary increases are based on the distribution of responsibilities assigned, the relative difficulty and importance of these responsibilities, and the level of success with which each was performed. " (C40).

      2. As specified by the provost in his letter of January 8, 1996 unit heads are to provide a summary evaluation and give greater weight in the summary evaluation to responsibilities (as determined by the goals and objectives) which required more time and effort from the individual.

      3. The evaluation must state whether the goals and expectations were met or exceeded and, if not met, whether the minimal acceptable level of productivity was met.


    6. The individual reviews the written summary evaluation prepared by the unit head. This includes "an opportunity to examine the written evaluation and to discuss with the evaluator the individual's resulting relative standing for the purpose of merit salary increase in the unit." (C46.4d).

      1. This opportunity for review will be documented with a signature of the faculty member (C46.4d).

      2. An opportunity will be provided for "written statements submitted by unclassified individuals of unresolved differences regarding their evaluations. " (C46.4e).


    7. The unit head will "recommend a merit salary adjustment for each unclassified person that should be based directly on the person's evaluation." (C46.4c). Ideally, this would occur at the same time as the evaluation review, but final decisions by the legislature on salary monies are often not made until late April or early May. Therefore, this decision may be delayed until after the evaluation review meeting.

    8. The unit head will also provide "recommendations for salary adjustments on bases outside of the annual evaluation, together with documentation which supports these recommendations." (C46.4f). This would include increases for market and equity adjustments and promotions.

    9. Deans will review the evaluations, resolve any problems, and forward them to the provost.

    10. The provost will review the evaluations for consistency with requirementsc established by the Faculty Senate and procedures established by his office, and for equity (for the most part, these reviews are done by Educational Advancement, Institutional Research and Analysis, and Unclassified Affairs).

    11. Evaluations are returned to the college deans, along with feedback from reviewers, for final actions.

  2. Locally Developed Student Rating Forms

    The great majority of departments at Kansas State University are in compliance with the Board of Regents recommendation that "teaching faculty be rated at least once a year, on a form controlled for student motivation and other possible bias." Effective this fall semester we anticipate that all departments will reflect this BOR recommendation in their faculty evaluation procedures. The annual reviews of departmental evaluation policies and individual faculty evaluations make it possible to audit implementation of this recommendation.

    The IDEA System and the TEVAL System, two student ratings systems developed at Kansas State, meet the BOR guidelines. Both systems are administered by the Office of Educational Advancement and are made available for use by all faculty members and graduate teaching assistants.

    Data collected about the use of TEVAL and IDEA during the past three academic years -- including the fall, spring and summer terms of each year -- are shown in the table below. The number of classes rated using both systems has risen during this time as have the number of faculty using these systems. Approximately 1200 faculty members use either TEVAL or IDEA in at least one course each year. GTAs are included with the ranked faculty in this table.
    DATA ON THE USE OF TEVAL AND IDEA AT K-STATE
    			-----1993-1994-----     -----1994-1995-----     -----1995-1996-----
    			F    S     S               F    S     S            F     S    S
    			# Classes  1498 1436  137             1639  1495   154        1845  1627   186
    			# Faculty  812   815  122              955   852   125        1025   870   147
    			


    Recent university-wide reviews of department evaluation systems gave particular attention to the departmental requirements regarding the use of student ratings in the evaluation of teaching effectiveness. The provost has stressed the December 1995 amendment in C34.1 of the K-State University Handbook which indicates that (1) all departments identify the student rating form to be used that conforms to the BOR guidelines, (2) tenured faculty use such a form in one course per year, and (3) probationary faculty be rated by students at least once a year in each course they teach.

    Eight departments did not use either TEVAL or IDEA during the past three academic years. To assure compliance with BOR and K-State policies, the provost has asked each dean to confirm in writing that every department will be in compliance with these policies effective this semester. Departments that wish to use forms other than IDEA or TEVAL must submit their selected forms for review by the Office of Educational Advancement to insure accordance with BOR guidelines and for subsequent approval by the provost.

  3. Faculty Development

    At Kansas State University, faculty development efforts are jointly determined actions directed at the career-long professional and personal development, adaptation, growth, and change of each faculty person. No single plan will work for everyone; any plan must be tailored to the needs of each individual and department. Each faculty member is expected to play an active role in the identification of needed developmental programs and activities.

    Faculty development is important for many reasons. Given that many faculty will be with us for 30 or more years, it is not surprising that major shifts and changes occur in academic disciplines and we must support faculty in their efforts to keep current with these changes. Technological changes will continue to have a major influence on higher education and its delivery of instructional and research services. Over time, many faculty undergo significant shifts in interests and changes in career directions. It is in the best interest of both faculty and the university to support this growth and change. The university must be responsive to external changes, pressures, and opportunities and be positioned and prepared to develop and guide faculty to be responsive to these areas. The hiring of new faculty is costly and time consuming and we must create the conditions to insure that during the tenure granting process they have every opportunity to be successful. In a similar fashion, we need to create an environment where faculty work in a context, and with adequate resources, to move through the ranks from assistant professor to full professor. Finally, we need to provide directions and services to those faculty who are having performance problems. In all cases we want to create a situation where each faculty member has the opportunity to grow and change and provide the greatest level of performance to the university.

    Faculty members and their department/unit heads bear the principal responsibility for faculty development on a day- by-day basis. Dean are charged with bringing focus and coordination to faculty development efforts. While faculty development is seen as an on-going everyday process, major decisions on a faculty member's development are generally made during the annual goal setting meeting and/or the evaluation process. Each faculty member follows a plan that fits her/his individual goals and needs. The goal setting and evaluation activities typically occur in December and January.

    During goal setting the faculty member charts future career directions and plans appropriate support activities. A faculty member could plan a series of activities to learn about and implement a "new" teaching strategy. A granting agency may be initiating a new program and one or more faculty members could be funded to attend workshops aimed at improving their level of competitiveness.

    During evaluation, which is a comprehensive assessment of the faculty member's performance in a variety of responsibilities, judgments are made about the faculty member's progress in light of the department's criteria and standards. A faculty member who is working toward tenure could be advised to participate in certain activities that would strengthen specific skills. A faculty member who is weak in some area could be assigned to intensive effort to improve performance within a set time period. A faculty member who is doing exemplary and innovative work could be asked to share that expertise with others.

    Actual implementation of faculty development objectives is facilitated through several organized or informal programs. Programs are often placed into five categories. A brief description of these areas plus specific examples of programs from are shown below:

    1. Special Assignments -- These activities normally require the faculty member to spend some allotted amount of time in a special assignment and recognize the need for periodic changes, redirections, and shifts in faculty's careers.

      Examples:


      1. Sabbatical -- The sabbatical is a formal leave granted to faculty on a periodic basis for renewal and development. In FY 1996, we granted 42 sabbaticals to faculty at an approximate cost of $1,400,000. Faculty on sabbaticals engage in a wide variety of activities and in FY 1996 this ranged from working with world-class colleagues at Carnegie Mellon on computer programing issues to completing a text book.

      2. Unpaid Leaves -- For the most part, unpaid leaves are managed at the departmental level. In FY 1996 approximately 10 unpaid leaves were granted. These could range from as little as a month to as much as a year. Unpaid leaves come at no direct cost to the university. In general, individuals use them for personal development (e.g., to finish an advanced degree) or for personal reasons (e.g., extended leave for childcare).

      3. Release Time -- Release time is a major approach used by a department to support faculty development. Department heads (with the approval of the dean) make these decisions. It is impossible to identify numbers or dollars for this type of activity, but a good estimate would be over a hundred faculty each year are provided release time from one activity to further their knowledge and skills. The heart of this process is for the heads to adjust the amount of time a faculty member spends on one activity (e.g., research or teaching) and allow them to use that time for developmental activities. This could include the development of a new course, modifying a course to use a greater amount of technology, developing a grant proposal, working with the Faculty Senate, serving on a major university-wide committee, and so on. Release time requires a shift of resources from one type of activity into another.

      4. Other -- There are many other ways that faculty receive special assignments. Most of these are small in number, but may have far reaching impact. Faculty exchanges between universities, faculty exchanges between departments (e.g., temporary assignments from an academic department to an administrative department), etc. In many ways they serve a similar function as sabbaticals, but without the direct costs to the university.


    2. Institutional Grants and Awards -- These programs are aimed at recognizing and stimulating special faculty achievements. The awards are made on a merit basis to a limited number of individuals. This approach, by using matching state funds, leverages additional sources of funding from grant and contract agencies.

      Examples:
      1. Teaching Awards -- The university provides a number of awards for teaching excellence. In FY 1996, 10 university-wide awards were given at a cost of $27,000. Each of the colleges also provide teaching awards. A total of 33 teaching awards were provided by the colleges in FY 1996 at an approximate cost of $20,000. The provost has also established a University Teaching Scholars Chair. Teaching Scholars Chairs become advisors for the campus on teaching issues and approaches.

      2. Faculty Development Awards -- In FY 1996 approximately $75,000 in awards were granted to faculty to support travel to international meetings for invited papers, travel to visit extramural sponsors, matching support for grants, support for Fulbrights,etc. These grants were seen as awards to encourage high profile activities and meetings which had the potential to generate additional extramural funding.

      3. Incentive Research Awards -- This is a special program to encourage new interdisciplinary programs of research. It provides the initial startup funding for these programs with the expectation that extramural funding will assume these costs in the future. About $300,000 was expended in FY 1996 for these programs.

      4. Administrative Development Grants -- Annually, the university supports one or two faculty for special programs for developing administrative skills. Special consideration has been given to women in this area. Costs vary for these programs, but average about $10,000 annually to cover costs of the program and living expenses (e.g., Harvard programs).

      5. Educational Communication Center Curriculum Grants -- For the last several years, the Regent's Educational Communication Center has been providing funding for the development of multimedia courses. Typically, four or five grants are funded each year by providing services worth approximately a cumulative total of nearly $200,000. This initiative is being used to improve the use of technology in the classroom.

      6. General Education Development Grants -- A series of small grants were provided to faculty to develop courses for the General Education Program. This was a special program for the past two years. Ten to fifteen grants were given each semester and have reached a cummlative total of approximately $175,000.

      7. Distinguished Professors -- The university has a total of fourteen faculty with the title of Distinguished University Professors. They received this title in recognition of excellence in teaching and research. We intend to increase the number being awarded this title. An additional five faculty have special chairs and titles in recognition of their achievements.

      8. Faculty Startup Grants -- Nearly all new faculty joining the university require initial startup packages. These grants would cover the cost for computers, special equipment needs, revamping of research space, state-of-the-art facilities, etc. Between the Main Campus, ESARP, Salina, and Veterinary Medicine, more than $500,00 are used annually to support this area.

      9. Other -- There are a variety of other awards given to faculty. The sources for these awards vary and include local, state, and federal groups and organizations. The awards recognize faculty for their achievements in their professional fields and areas. This could include being named a fellow in a professional organization, awards for outstanding achievements in their field, recognition of past service, etc. No central list exits for these awards, but they are often used as part of a faculty members annual evaluation.

    3. Collaboration and Collegiality -- Often seen as one of the more effective avenues for personal and professional growth, collaboration and involvement with colleagues both on- and off-campus is especially promoted and supported at the unit/department level. Some activities involve interactions with professional peers -- engaging in collaborative and interdisciplinary opportunities for research or teaching or curriculum development, producing in-house publications, consulting within the university, working with networking or interest groups, providing leadership in university governance, interacting with visiting scholars or experts, conference attendance, and support for programs to improve teaching/ research/service skills. Other activities involve the senior faculty in recruiting, preparing, and mentoring the next generation of faculty members.

      Examples:
      1. Mentoring -- Successful senior faculty are expected to support junior faculty in their own departments and related departments and units. The majority of these support activities are informal in nature, but the University has several formal mentoring programs (e.g., the Sloan Foundation). The goal of mentoring is to increase the day-to-day performance of the junior faculty and to increase the probability that they will stay at the University.

      2. University Governance -- Higher education in the United States operates on the concept of shared governance. Faculty are responsible for academic activities and decisions within the University. The formal mechanism for this governance at the university level is the Faculty Senate. At the college and department level, almost all faculty serve on one or more committees. Junior faculty serve on departmental committees and the more senior faculty serve on college committees and the faculty senate. This type of service is sanctioned through the goal setting process within the department. Through this process, faculty gain skills in group processes and a broader knowledge of the university. Many faculty moving to an administrative position have had service in the committee structure.

      3. Cooperative Efforts -- Faculty engage in a wide-range of cooperative efforts with other faculty. These can include team teaching of courses; development of instructional materials and approaches; course development; joint development and execution of research programs, joint development of outreach programs, interdisciplinary research projects, and so on. These arrangements are both formal agreements between individuals and units as well as informal working groups. They are typically discussed part on an individual faculty member's annual goal setting meeting. Almost all faculty are involved in these types of efforts during each year.

      4. Conference Attendance -- Faculty are strongly encouraged to attend professional conferences each year and the presenting of materials at national conventions is an expectation for most faculty. While departments pay a small part of the travel cost for attendance or, in a limited number of cases, travel is supported by grant funding, the majority of faculty pay for traveling to a conference out of their own pocket. Conferences are seen as a major way for faculty to keep their skills and knowledge current. They do this by attending sessions at the conference and interacting with professional from other institutions and businesses during the conference. Conferences can cover teaching, research, service and outreach issues. A large sum is expended each year for conferences and only a small part is from state dollars.

    4. Inservice Education -- Inservice programs conducted on-campus are usually short-term and directed at developing and enhancing specific skills. Workshops, seminars and other activities may be organized and conducted by local faculty leaders or by presenters invited to campus for a specific purpose. Faculty are also encouraged to attend regional and national inservice opportunities. The examples provided are representative of this approach.

      Examples:

      1. Provost's Lecture Series --This series brings nationally known experts to campus to discuss pedagogical and technical issues connected with using technology in the classroom. Distinguished faculty and local experts are also used. One lecture per month is offered during the academic year.

      2. CITAC Lecture Series -- This lecture series also deals with the use of technologies in the classroom. Two lectures are scheduled per semester.

      3. College Teaching Course -- Once a semester the College of Education offers a course on the Principles of College Teaching. The emphasis in the course is on preservice (e.g., GTAs) and inservice (faculty) help in improving instruction at the college level. Enrollments are normally in the 20-25 range. Students and faculty from across the campus enroll or audit.

      4. Technical Assistance Center -- This is a new program being developed to help faculty with the use of technology in the classroom. It is currently planned to put this facility and service in the library once it is completed. It will provide services to all faculty.

      5. Research Workshops -- The office of Research and Sponsored Programs offers workshops to faculty on grant development and preparation. These workshops are directed at the aiding faculty in preparing grant and contract applications. This can range of the identification of grant sources to how to prepare a budget.

      6. Department Head Workshops -- These workshops are directed at the professional development of unit/department head. Topics have included legal issues, evaluation of faculty, budget preparation, and so on.




    5. Expert Consultation and Assistance -- These more focused programs are usually made available to a limited number of faculty members who need (or want) the time-intensive attention provided by expert consultation or assistance. This face-to-face assistance can include a broad range of personal and professional topics. These programs may be recommended by a department/unit head.

      Examples:

      1. Office of Educational Advancement -- A variety of consultation opportunities are offered through the Office of Educational Advancement on issues related to the improvement and enhancement of teaching skills. Specific programs include: videotaping of teaching to aid in instructional development, classroom observation of teaching, individual analysis and interpretation of student ratings, etc.

      2. Instructional Support Center -- Staff from the Instructional Support Center of Computing and Network Services work one-on-one with faculty who are learning to incorporate multimedia technologies into their courses.

      3. The Speech and Hearing Center -- The Speech and Hearing Center offers assistance to faculty members who speak English as a second language and the Center conducts in-depth evaluations and observations and develops individualized programs based on the results.

      4. Mid-Probationary Review -- A formal review of a probationary faculty member seeking tenure is conducted midway (normally the third year) through the probationary period. This review provides the faculty member with substantive feedback from faculty colleagues and administrators regarding his or her accomplishments relative to departmental tenure criteria. The department head discusses the review with the dean and then provides to the candidate a letter of assessment, including a summary of faculty comments and suggestions. The department head discusses the review and assessment with the candidate.

      5. Other Faculty -- In the same way that faculty serve as mentors when faculty are developing, they stand ready to help identify and solve specific problems.
ATTACHMENT 1KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITYCALENDAR OF MAJOR EVALUATION EVENTS

Deadline Events

SEPTEMBER

STUDENT RATINGS: Department notify faculty that student ratings are needed.

SEPT/OCT

PROMOTION/TENURE: Candidates prepare materials for review.

MID NOVEMBER

PROMOTION/TENURE: Departments prepare recommendations.

LATE NOVEMBER

PROMOTION/TENURE: Department's promotion/tenure recommendations are forwarded to the deans.

MID DECEMBER

PROMOTION/TENURE: Promotion/tenure material and summaries for each candidate are submitted to the Dean's Council for review.

MID DECEMBER

NOTICE OF NON-REAPPOINTMENT: Regular and probationary faculty/staff members, in their second year of service must be notified of non-reappointment.

DEC/JAN

PROMOTION/TENURE: Dean's Council reviews promotion/tenure files.

DEC/JAN

UNCLASSIFIED EVALUATIONS: Unclassified personnel submit documentation of activities and accomplishments for the period being evaluated. Unclassified personnel meet with department heads to establish goals for the next evaluation year. Colleges/units will establish internal deadlines.

LATE MARCH

UNCLASSIFIED EVALUATIONS: The following tasks are accomplished according to timeliness established within the college or unit:

Department/Unit heads complete evaluations.
Heads share evaluations with unclassified personnel.
Heads forward evaluation materials to appropriate dean or vice-president.

LATE FEBRUARY

PROMOTION/TENURE: Deans forward recommendations to the provost.
EMERITI: Departments recommend faculty for emeritus status to deans.

EARLY MARCH

NOTICE OF NON-REAPPOINTMENT: Regular or probationary faculty/staff members, in their first year of service must be notified of non-reappointment.

EARLY MARCH

PROMOTION/TENURE: Dean's inform candidates of promotion/tenure decisions.

LATE MARCH

UNCLASSIFIED EVALUATIONS: Deans and unit heads forward evaluation materials to the provost or appropriate vice president.

MID APRIL

UNCLASSIFIED EVALUATIONS:The provost and vice presidents return evaluation comments and evaluations to the deans and unit heads.

MAY/JUNE

BUDGET ALLOCATIONS: Final budget allocations to units are made (basis for salary increases).

MAY/JUNE

ANNUAL MERIT INCREASE, MARKET ADJUSTMENT, AND EQUITY ADJUSTMENTS: Recommendations for salary increases and market and equity adjustments are due in provost's and/or vice presidents' offices.

JUNE/JULY

ANNUAL BUDGET DEVELOPMENT: Units report finalized annual salaries, promotions, and tenure decisions to the Budget Office.

JUNE/JULY

ANNUAL BUDGET DEVELOPMENT: Start budget process for next year.

JUNE/JULY

UNCLASSIFIED EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS: Completed continuing contracts are due in the Office of Unclassified Affairs. Reappointment of term appointments are submitted to the Affirmative Action Office.

JULY

BUDGET DEVELOPMENT: Budget Office reports annual salaries and promotion decisions to Human Resource Services.

ATTACHMENT 2

KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY
SELECTED EXCERPTS FROM THE
University Handbook

C40

Bases for salary increases. Annual written evaluations conducted for the purpose of determining merit salary increases are based on the distribution of responsibilities assigned, the relative difficulty and importance of these responsibilities, and the level of success with which each was performed.

C45.1

Responsibilities of those who are evaluated. Each unclassified person will meet annually with the unit head to jointly establish personal goals and objectives for the upcoming evaluation period and to discuss their relative importance within the context of the unit's goals. It is expected that the previous year's statement will be considered during the annual evaluation and goal setting process.

C45.2

Each unclassified person will provide an annual written summary of accomplishments and activities in accordance with the guidelines provided by the unit's statement of criteria, standards, and procedures.

C46.4

The unit head who prepared the evaluations must submit the following items to the appropriate dean (or, for support units, the appropriate administrator): (See schedule as published by the provost each October.)

a. A copy of the evaluation system used to prepare the evaluations.

b. A written evaluation for each regularly appointed unclassified person employed for at least three months during the calendar year.

c. A recommended merit salary adjustment for each unclassified person that should be based directly on the person's evaluation.

d. Documentation (e.g., a statement signed by the individual evaluated) establishing that there was an opportunity to examine the written evaluation and to discuss with the evaluator the individual's resulting relative standing for the purpose of merit salary increase in the unit.

e. Any written statements submitted by unclassified individuals of unresolved differences regarding their evaluations.

f. Any recommendations for salary adjustments on bases outside of the annual evaluation, together with documentation which supports these recommendations.

C31.5

Chronic Low Achievement. Chronic failure of a tenured faculty member to perform his or her professional duties as defined in the respective unit shall constitute evidence of "professional incompetence" and warrant consideration for "dismissal for cause" under existing university policies. Each department or unit shall develop a set of guidelines describing the minimum acceptable level of productivity for all applicable areas of responsibility for the faculty as well as procedures to handle such cases. It is expected that departmental faculty will have input into any decisions on individual cases, if requested by the faculty member. When a tenured faculty member's overall performance falls below the minimum acceptable level, as indicated by the annual evaluation, the department or unit head shall indicate so in writing to the faculty member. The department head will also indicate in writing a suggested course of action to improve the performance of the faculty member. In subsequent annual evaluations the faculty member will report on activities aimed at improving performance and any evidence of improvement. The names of faculty members who fail to meet minimum standards for the year following the department head's suggested course of action will be forwarded to the appropriate dean. If the faculty member has two successive evaluations, or a total of three evaluations in any five year period in which minimum standards are not met, then "dismissal for cause" will be considered at the discretion of the appropriate dean.