The University of Kentucky text as a link to the main page.
The University Senate text as a link to the main page.

Faculty Committee on Review, Rewards and Retention (FCR3)

June 2012

FCR3 has submitted a preliminary executive summary draft to President Capilouto.

Input will be solicited from faculty (including department chairs and deans) in August and September. The Committee will reconvene in October to make any needed revisions based on faculty feedback and a final report will be submitted to President Capilouto in November. Formalized mechanisms for input will be established for the August-September period.

If you would like to offer input prior to fall, you can use the Comment Box located at the bottom of the Committee's web page.

Spring 2012

Ongoing University initiatives focused on fulfilling "The Kentucky Promise" require an examination of faculty activities, with respect to emerging opportunities and improved accountability. At the request of President Capilouto and former provost Subbaswamy, the Faculty Committee on Review, Rewards and Retention was appointed last February to conduct a review of current policies and practices related to faculty evaluation. The Committee consists of 20 faculty members representing different Colleges (membership is below). Its objective is to identify challenges and opportunities with the current system, as well as areas in which the University can improve.

The Committee is currently working to understand current practices in place across campus by reviewing available data and documenting processes. We are also reviewing peer institutions and identifying industry trends. Building on this fact base, the Committee will then work to identify opportunities for UK to improve.

We understand that an initiative such as this requires faculty input at all stages. At this point, the Committee would like to solicit feedback from faculty to gather perspectives on the following questions:

  1. How do annual/biannual faculty evaluations function as a guide to promote faculty improvement? What opportunities exist for professional development?

  2. How is excellence in research, teaching, and service rewarded? Does the review process serve an important role in identifying and rewarding excellence in the faculty?

  3. How could/should the process be reformed to make it better?

To date, we have hosted public forums on this topic and solicited representative perspectives from elected faculty representatives. We would like to provide faculty members an additional opportunity to comment on these questions via text box on this page. We are seeking honest and complete feedback. Therefore, these responses will be kept anonymous. Responses will then be provided to the Committee for consideration.

The Committee plans to share the initial results of its work in draft form in the Fall and again solicit feedback from the faculty at this time.


President's Charge


  1. Workgroup #1. Examine criteria and expectations used to evaluate faculty performance and recommend changes, if necessary.
    • Do all colleges and departments have clearly defined criteria and expectations for faculty performance in teaching, research and service which guide faculty performance reviews? Do the unit expectations align with the priorities of the University? Do they align with criteria for promotion and tenure? Are minimum (satisfactory) and highly innovative efforts sufficiently recognized in all faculty evaluations? If not, what changes would improve evaluations?
  2. Workgroup #2. Examine annual/performance reviews and recommend changes, if necessary.
    • Are annual/periodic reviews of faculty performance objective, reliable and valid? Do they serve as a mechanism to reward performance and identify areas for professional development? Do salary adjustments correspond to evaluations? If not, what policies and procedures would improve evaluations?
  3. Workgroup #3. Determine whether faculty development and accountability are appropriately addressed and recommend changes, if necessary.
    • Are sufficient opportunities for professional development available? Are formal mechanisms in place within the colleges to ensure tenure-track faculty receive appropriate mentoring? Are existing mechanisms adequate to ensure timely improvement in the performance of faculty whose performance is deemed less than satisfactory [unsatisfactory] in any area? Are existing policies, regulations and procedures pertaining to performance accountability of tenured faculty sufficiently rigorous? If not, what changes are recommended?