About 100 people gathered for a virtual town hall Thursday, Nov. 6, to share questions and comments about the draft rubrics that will soon be used to assess performance during faculty annual reviews.
The event was hosted by Faculty President Timothy Masterson, MD, co-chairs of the school-wide task force that drafted the rubrics and leaders from Faculty Affairs and Professional Development.
Below is a summary of the topics covered during the event.
Purpose and Context
Law and policy are driving the changes.
In response to a new Indiana state law mandating post-tenure productivity reviews for tenured faculty at all state institutions of higher education and an Indiana University Board of Trustees policy (BOT-24) that ties post-tenure productivity reviews to faculty annual reviews, IU School of Medicine must create and implement criteria (rubrics) for assessing faculty performance.
These rubrics must:
- Promote clarity in what is expected of faculty
- Ensure all faculty are evaluated according to standard indicators of performance
- Be flexible enough to apply to faculty across tracks, differences in rank and varying allocations of effort
IU School of Medicine Dean Jay Hess, MD, PhD, MHSA, convened two task forces to draft the three standardized rubrics — research, service and teaching — that will be used during annual reviews to assess faculty performance, depending on one’s area of excellence.
Each rubric outlines the requirements necessary for leaders to assess faculty performance as falling into one of three categories outlined by BOT-24:
- Exceeds Expectations
- Meets Expectations
- Does Not Meet Expectations
A fourth category, Unsatisfactory, is reserved for those faculty who receive more than one consecutive Does Not Meet Expectations rating.
The rubrics are expected to roll out in time for reviews taking place in spring 2026, although the policy that requires this is under review until Nov. 12. (See the “Timeline” section, below, for more details.)
About the rubric-creation task forces
The task forces were composed of intentionally diverse members, including:
- Elected Faculty Steering Committee members
- Department chairs
- Vice chairs for research, education and faculty development
- Faculty from regional campuses
Their goal was to create consistent, representative and flexible rubrics aligned with promotion and tenure standards, while allowing local adaptation at department and division levels.
Timeline
The timeline from the implementation of the law in July to the implementation of faculty annual review assessment rubrics is short. Task forces have moved nimbly and are right on time.
- Draft rubrics were made available for open comments beginning Oct. 17.
- The open-comment period will end Nov. 16.
- The Faculty Steering Committee will consider faculty feedback and could vote on final rubrics as early as December.
- As of today, the standardized rubrics are intended to roll out with the 2025 annual reviews taking place in spring 2026. However, this portion of the BOT-24 policy is under review, with a possible change of the roll-out date to spring 2027. Faculty are encouraged to review the changes proposed to BOT-24 and submit comments by Nov. 12.
Faculty feedback and themes from comments received prior to the town hall
Thirteen faculty members provided feedback via the open comments and questions form. Comments included:
- Concern about administrative burden
- Questions about application to non-tenure-track faculty
- Requests to include missing elements, such as editorial roles, book authorship, mentoring and others
- Questions about clarity and realism in expectations
- Uncertainty about how many criteria must be met for one to achieve a specific rating
Concerns and feedback received to date are being compiled. The task forces will continue to collect feedback until Nov. 16. At the conclusion of the open-comment period, the task forces and Faculty Steering Committee will consider all feedback and determine necessary changes before they are finalized.
Question-and-Answer Segment
Questions and related discussions centered around the following topics:
Relationship between annual reviews, post-tenure review, and promotion and tenure
- While the post-tenure productivity review policy only affects those faculty who either have or will receive tenure, the rubrics will be used for all faculty during all faculty annual reviews. Therefore, the implementation of the rubrics will affect all faculty in the School of Medicine.
- Rubrics are aligned with promotion and tenure expectations. However, rubrics measure only one year of progress, whereas promotion and tenure decisions are based on cumulative achievement and a far more comprehensive dossier.
- Annual reviews provide the foundation for the five-year, post-tenure review.
- No automatic salary penalties are tied to rubric ratings, but performance documentation should inform salary decisions.
- The accumulation of five satisfactory annual reviews is not enough to waive post-tenure review. If faculty would like to suggest this as an option, they are encouraged to review the changes proposed to BOT-24 and submit comments by Nov. 12.
Rubrics, rating scale and evaluations
- The scale includes four levels:
- Exceeds Expectations
- Meets Expectations
- Does Not Meet Expectations
- Unsatisfactory (used only if a faculty member receives two consecutive Does Not Meet Expectations ratings)
- Chairs may use their discretion when interpreting rubrics and ratings for local contexts.
- Departments should develop local criteria to reflect unit-specific expectations (e.g., differences between teaching medical students vs. residents).
- Chairs and vice chairs have been briefed on the rubrics and were encouraged to involve faculty in the process.
Use of Elements software
- Elements replaces the former faculty activity-tracking software, Digital Measures Activity Insight (DMAI). It is required for use beginning with the next annual review cycle (early 2026, assessing 2025 faculty performance).
- Elements offers more automated data imports (including IU School of Medicine-specific imports) related to grants, publications, committee service and more, compared with DMAI.
- Current users report that it is more user-friendly and less time-consuming than DMAI after initial setup.
First round of post-tenure reviews
Those undergoing the first round (2025-2026) include:
- Faculty who received tenure five years ago
- 20% of IU Indianapolis faculty with the most longevity as tenured faculty
Find out who will receive post-tenure reviews in which years.
Final call to action from the faculty president
Before closing the meeting, Faculty President Tim Masterson, MD, urged all faculty to:
- Carefully review the draft rubrics.
- Submit feedback via the online form by Nov. 16.
- Discuss rubrics within your department.
- Use your annual review conversations to clarify expectations and make sure you understand what your leaders expect from you.
