Picture of
MSU's Beaumont Tower.

Michigan State University

Background on Post-Tenure Review


Post-Tenure Review: A Summary of Other Comparable University Policies.

This document includes summaries of Post-Tenure Review practices at several universities which are similar to Michigan State University. The original summary was provided by Dr. Robert Secor, Vice President for Academic Affairs at Pennsylvania State University. The document reformats his work for easier reading.

A Pennsylvania State University colleague, Dr. Robert Secor, Vice Provost for Academic Affairs and Personnel, has kindly shared summaries of post tenure review policies at comparable universities. In some cases these summaries have been edited or supplemented slightly, while the policies of other universities not included in the original Secor package, but kindly provided by Dr. Christine Licata, have been added and summarized using his format. Efforts have been made to obtain complete policies in their most recent version. The policies of 17 public, large enrollment, graduate/professional universities have been analyzed and summarized. Most of the policies share a number of characteristics with Michigan State University. More university policies could have been included, but it was concluded that this set provides a useful array of information. The universities whose policies are summarized include:

Arizona State University, Main Campus
Colorado State University System
Florida State University System
Rutgers University
University of Arizona
University of California - Davis
University of Colorado
University of Iowa
University of Kentucky
University of Louisville
University of Maryland System
University of Minnesota
University of North Carolina
University of Oregon
University of Texas System
University of Virginia
University of Wisconsin - Madison

General comments about university Post Tenure Review Policies included here:

ColoradoArizona StateArizona
IowaUniversity of California at DavisKentucky
OregonColorado StateMinnesota
North Carolina

University Post Tenure Review policy summaries appear in alphabetical order on the following pages.

Arizona State University, Main Campus

 The post tenure review process is based on nine general principles. An Enhanced Review can be triggered by outcomes of annual mandatory reviews, by a once every five years review by the dean and as a result of program reviews conducted every seven years. A mandatory Enhanced Review is triggered by overall unsatisfactory rating on the annual performance review or by determination in the program review that the faculty member is not contributing to the success of the program.
Mandate The Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) requires an annual performance review of all professional personnel.

Post Tenure Review Process was approved by the Faculty Senate on October 14, 1996.

Purpose Since an individual faculty member who has been awarded tenure has demonstrated excellent performance and represents a large investment on the part of the university, it is in the best interest of the university to do everything within reason to assure the performance of the tenured faculty member remains at a satisfactory level. In the case of continued competence, as defined by satisfactory or better performance, such competence should be consistently and appropriately rewarded. If an individual's performance becomes unsatisfactory, the faculty member has a responsibility, shared with the university, to improve performance, Every attempt should be made to support the faculty member in this performance improvement. Only after the improvement process has clearly failed should dismissal be considered.
Process Enhanced Reviews are to be conducted by a three person faculty committee appointed by the dean or a College Personnel Committee three person subcommittee selected by the chairperson. The affected faculty member can choose either option. The results of the process are forwarded to the faculty member, the unit head and dean and fall into one of three categories: 1) expectations have been met; 2) some strengths and weaknesses are identified, but developmental support is proposed and/or performance weights are modified; and 3) the unsatisfactory performance rating is upheld based on substantial and chronic deficiencies. This result leads to development of a performance improvement plan.
Outcome A performance improvement plan includes goals, activities, time-line and milestones in addition to support resources. The three person review committee monitors progress toward achievement of plan goals. If goals are achieved, the faculty member returns to the normal annual evaluation process. If goals are not achieved by the conclusion of the plan, the appropriate administrator will exercise the option to initiate the dismissal for cause process.

Colorado State University System

 Comprehensive performance reviews of all tenured faculty shall be conducted at intervals of five years following the acquisition of tenure or if there are two unsatisfactory annual reviews within a five-year period. (Periodic reviews are but one type of faculty performance reviews covered by a general policy on performance reviews. Others include annual reviews, mid-course reviews of probationary tenure system faculty and reviews for promotion).
Mandate Approved by the Colorado State University Faculty Council on December 3, 1996.
Purpose Periodic performance review is to facilitate continued professional development, to refocus professional efforts when appropriate and to assure that faculty members are meeting their obligations to the university.
Process Comprehensive performance reviews may have two phases. A phase I review is conducted by the chairperson based on past annual reviews and information provided by the faculty member. The evaluation identifies strengths and weaknesses and if satisfactory, as relevant, a professional development plan is developed with support and time-lines for goal achievement provided. If the evaluation is unsatisfactory a phase II comprehensive performance review is initiated. This review is conducted by peers with peer group composition, criteria and information to be used specified by a department approved code.
Outcome The peer review committee in a phase II comprehensive performance review may determine that: performance expectations are being met; deficiencies identified are not substantial or chronic; substantial and chronic or recurrent difficulties exist which must be remedied; and performance is such that sanctions up to and including tenure revocation should be considered. As relevant a professional development plan may be designed by the chairperson and faculty member. Committee reports shall be provided to the faculty member with an opportunity to respond, the chairperson, the dean and Provost/Academic Vice President who shall make the final decision regarding action.

Florida State University System

 "The Board of Regents establishes a program of review for tenured faculty members . . . [It] will combine the annual evaluation process with a periodic comprehensive review of performance, thus emphasizing continuous evaluation in order to document performance in a reliable and timely manner and in a way most congruent with other ongoing evaluative process (e.g., annual salary increase reviews, tenure and promotion evaluations, Professorial Excellence Program and Teaching Incentive Program reviews)."

The program is effective beginning with the 1997-98 academic year. In phasing in the implementation of the program, the universities are to review currently eligible faculty members by the end of the 1999-2000 academic year.

Mandate The Florida Board of Regents in 1996 required tenured professors in the State University System to undergo periodic evaluations.
Purpose To document sustained performance and to encourage continuing professional growth and development.
Process Frequency: Every 7 years, following the most recent promotion.

Levels: The sustained comprehensive review is to be conducted by peers and administrators at the department and higher levels.

Procedure: The review will identify: 1) excellent sustained performance; 2) generally satisfactory sustained performance but with room for improvement; 3) deficient performance. Provision for written summary (including improvement plans if appropriate) and opportunity for written response by faculty member.

Outcome  Faculty members judged by the review process as consistently below satisfactory may be reviewed at intervals shorter than 7 years.

If their performance is judged deficient or in need of improvement, faculty members will develop with their department chair a performance improvement plan with specific targets. Failure to meet these targets will result in disciplinary action,up to and including dismissal.

Rutgers University

 Post tenure review is required every five years; the results of the reviews are to be communicated to the faculty member and placed in the personnel file. The intent of post tenure review is non-evaluative, but rather for the purpose of facilitating departmental planning. The review may not be used to abrogate in any way the academic freedom of the faculty member.
Mandate Original policy approved by the Board of Governors in September 1976 and reissued on November 1, 1994 by the Vice President for Academic Affairs.
Purpose "To facilitate department planning, and in particular to make changes in assignments that address identified gaps between departmental needs and faculty member interests; to visibly demonstrate, in the context of increasing demands for accountability from taxpayers, public officials, and others, that the University has systems in place that provide for such accountability; and to aid in the professional development of individual faculty members by ensuring an appropriate match between their current interests and activities and the research, teaching and service needs of their department."
Process All tenured faculty who have not been reviewed for post-tenure promotion in rank within a five-year period must have a separate post-tenure review. Faculty subject to review must review the statement of the research, teaching, and service needs of the department. They are provided a minimum notice of 45 days of the date of the review and are provided with a copy of the current post tenure review procedure. The post-tenure review takes place in a meeting between the faculty member and the department chair. The faculty member provides the chair with a current CV, an outline of a five-year plan setting forth the faculty member's goals for teaching, scholarship and service and any other information the faculty member wishes to provide. These materials are reviewed and examined in relation to current departmental needs. When a gap between departmental need and individual faculty member interests is identified, the chair and faculty member explore possible changes so that the faculty member's strengths can better serve the need of the department and college.
Outcome A written summary of the review prepared by the chair and response from the faculty member, if any, are placed in the faculty member's personnel file.

University of Arizona

 "When the continuing review shows that a performance is below acceptable standards for a tenured faculty or continuing academic professional, the intent of the review must be to begin a vigorous program of support on the part of the University, to re-engage and refocus that person in whom so much has already been invested. Only after such a process has clearly failed, and then alone, should termination of service be considered, according to the ABOR procedures."
Mandate The Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) requires an annual performance review of all professional personnel.

The "Procedures for Continuing Review" was passed by the Faculty Senate on October 14, 1996. Continuing Review is "a post-tenure process linked to the performance-based compensation plan, using the annual performance review to connect satisfactory or better performance to rewards, and to connect performance below satisfactory levels to performance improvement."

Purpose  To provide an equitable system for connecting performance to rewards; to strengthen accountability; to assist faculty in career growth; to protect academic freedom and tenure; to utilize the present process of evaluation as much as possible; to provide an appeals system in order to ensure full protection for faculty.
Process The annual review becomes a system of continuing reviews of each faculty member's performance over a 3-5 year period. Results in ratings of 1) satisfactory or better without a teaching deficiency (making faculty member eligible for merit raise and other rewards); 2) satisfactory with a teaching deficiency (calling for corrective action); or 3), overall unsatisfactory, resulting in an Enhanced Evaluation, by appointed departmental committee or elected peer committee at higher levels (reviewee's option).
Outcome If the Enhanced Evaluation also proves unsatisfactory, the faculty member will devise a development improvement plan (faculty member may bypass committee and choose this directly) with the unit head and peer committee and approval of the dean. The spirit of the improvement plan is to support, encourage, and measure the quality of faculty performance, to the end that it meets stated expectations. After a period of no more than one year, a special evaluation is conducted by the unit head and elected peer committee. An improvement plan may stay in place no more than three years as a means to achieving satisfactory performance.

If satisfactory progress is not made within this period, termination of service for "demonstrated incompetence" is possible under the ABOR dismissal policy.

University of California - Davis*

 All University of California faculty members shall be reviewed at least every five years. Implementation of this policy shall be coordinated with reviews implementing the University of California professorial step system.
Mandate University of California Regents' actions of August 1991 and August 1992.
Purpose Career development and assessment of faculty performance.
Process Three options: 1) a meeting between the faculty member and chairperson; 2) a meeting between the faculty member and chairperson with the assembly of a full file of faculty performance materials or 3) a full file for review using normal review procedures, including peer review. The results of the five year review are: advancement in salary and/or promotion; no advancement, performance satisfactory; and no advancement, performance unsatisfactory. In all cases the chairperson reports in writing to the dean who forwards the request to the vice provost who submits the report to the Committee on Academic Personnel.
Outcome As noted, outcomes include advancement and in the case of no advancement but satisfactory performance follow up reviews are scheduled no later than every five years. Unsatisfactory performance may result in a reassignment of responsibilities, reassignment from space and facilities, a decision not to endorse a sabbatical leave application and consideration of a chairperson discussion with the faculty member about other career options. These include: a change in appointment title, other career options and early retirement.

*All University of California System members are covered by the Regent's policy that "every faculty member shall be reviewed every five years. The Chancellor, with the advice of the Academic Senate, shall determine the level and type of review and shall develop appropriate implementing procedures." The procedure summarized above is one such example. In addition to the University of California at Davis, the University of California System includes five other AAU member universities: Berkeley, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Diego and Santa Barbara.

University of Colorado

 Article 5, Section B, paragraph 4(B) of the Laws of the Regents states:
In order to facilitate continuing faculty development, each faculty member shall be subject to comprehensive peer review and evaluation at least once every five to seven years after the award of tenure. The evaluation may be conducted in conjunction with existing program review procedures or as a part of the annual review for salary determination; however, the faculty evaluation must be comprehensive in scope. The faculty member, the dean of the college or school, and other appropriate administrative officers shall be informed by the department chair or the equivalent administrator of the results of the evaluation.*
Mandate Board of Regents: "Each faculty member shall be subject to comprehensive peer review and evaluation at least once every five to seven years after the award of tenure." (Since at least 1983)

The review may be made in conjunction with the normal annual review or program review procedures, but must be comprehensive. The faculty member, dean, and other appropriate administrators must be informed by the department chair of the results of the review.

Purpose  To implement Regent's policy. Intent: To facilitate continued faculty development.
Process Location: Primary unit faculty, or that faculty in combination with others. Department procedures must be approved by appropriate dean and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. A University-wide oversight committee monitors faculty review and development efforts. The committee includes faculty and administrative representation.

Criteria: Same as for tenure and promotion.

Outcome Reviews will result in summary statement on evaluation and, if appropriate, a written plan for faculty member's development, written by head of unit in conjunction with faculty member. Plan and any faculty comments to be placed in faculty member's file and followed. The Vice Chancellor and deans are to work with the heads of primary units to monitor the effectiveness of post-tenure review procedures and to assure that appropriate resources and follow-up are provided to faculty members.

*State: House Bill 96-1366 mandates the Colorado Commission on Higher Education by October 1996 to submit a report to the Joint Budget Committee that addresses "the appropriateness of tenure at each type of higher education institution, the current types of post-tenure review, the proper balance between full-time and part-time faculty, and the proper balance between research and teaching.

University of Iowa

 "Each academic unit is charged with developing and implementing a plan for peer review of each tenured full professor in the unit. Such peer review should be done periodically, at least once every five years. The review should address the quality of the faculty member's performance in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service and should result in recommendations that help to enhance that performance."

The plan is to include 1) selection of the peer review committee; 2) committee procedures and timelines; 3) materials to be reviewed; 4) distribution and use of the committee's written report; and 5) mechanisms for the faculty member to respond.

Mandate Policy adopted by the Faculty Senate on April 11, 1989 and is implemented in specific procedures adopted by the several colleges. Apparently, some colleges review tenured associate professors on a seven year cycle, while others use the five-year standard. All full professors are reviewed on a five-year cycle.
Purpose "Strengthen the work of faculty" (Dentistry)

"Review professional performance, establish or clarify professional directions and (provide) helpful feedback from peers." (Education)

"Periodic assessment of performance.....in teaching, scholarship and service and to provide information from the review that will strengthen the work of the faculty member and....help inform recommendations of merit pay increases, outstanding teaching awards, teaching assignments, semester assignments, and leaves of absence." (Liberal Arts)

"To assure a faculty of optimal effectiveness and productivity and to provide one basis for the allocation of resources." (Medicine)

Process College procedures vary, but in general, faculty are instructed about materials to be submitted for the review. Committees conduct the reviews and may be appointed by the dean or chairperson in consultation with the faculty member. Some colleges use the same committee involved in reappointment, promotion and tenure reviews. Committee reports may go to the unit administrator who may share them with the dean. The faculty member may have the opportunity to provide a written response to the review.
Outcome Outcomes vary by college ranging from the report being filed with the faculty member under review only, or in the college dean's office.

University of Kentucky
(College of Arts and Sciences)

 "Academic sentiment rightly insists upon giving enormous deference and latitude to faculty members pursuing scholarship that may be out of vogue, politically controversial, long in gestation, or in other ways needful of the protections of academic freedom. If we could be assured that such considerations are not at play, we might be less willing to tie up a valuable faculty line for a professor who, over a long period, has demonstrated that he or she is simply unproductive and disengaged from the academic enterprise."

"In such cases, the question arises: is there a way to develop a post-tenure review system that can respect all of the important values and practices of traditional academic employment, including most importantly academic freedom and tenure, and that will nonetheless allow departmental faculties to intervene in those cases of true dereliction or neglect of duties?"

Mandate Developed by the College of Arts and Sciences of the University of Kentucky in 1994 "in response to the changing circumstances of the modern university":
1) lean budgets; 2) end of mandatory retirement; 3) growing external demands for accountability.
Purpose The purpose is to provide "effective evaluation, useful feedback, appropriate intervention, and timely affirmative assistance to ensure that every faculty member continues to experience professional development and accomplishment during the various phases of his or her career. . . [Reviews will focus] on those tenured faculty who request it and on tenured faculty for whom the biennial . . . reviews indicate persistent sub-par performance. It is thus . . . not intended as a new requirement burdening all . . . faculty."
Process Basis for review is department statement of expectations for adequate faculty performance. Reviews requested by faculty are meant to assist faculty and are to be used for no other review purpose. A 3-member faculty review committee is appointed by the dean in consultation with the faculty member and chair. Reviews of faculty selected as a result of two consecutive poor biennial reviews are conducted by the department chair, or ad hoc faculty committee appointed by the dean or the Arts and Sciences Council. Faculty member is given a choice.
Outcome Faculty selected for review may result in three outcomes: 1) the faculty member is told that he or she has met department expectations; 2) Deficiencies are identified but not considered substantial or chronic, with faculty member, chair, and dean notified of results.; 3) Deficiencies are considered substantial and a Development Plan is formulated to address these concerns, with timelines and criteria for annual progress reviews. Faculty requested reviews may also result in Professional Development Plan.

University of Louisville: The College of Arts and Science.


 Has developed a three stage periodic review plan. Stage one consists of the department's personnel committee reviewing the annual reviews of the faculty member for the previous five years and issuing a report to the College Personnel Committee. If the report indicates satisfactory performance, and the College committee agrees, the review cycle is completed for that five year period.

Some faculty, however will be selected for further review. Stage 2A will be for faculty whose performance is less than satisfactory. Stage 2B is for faculty whose performance over the past five years has been consistently superior and who should be considered for supplemental merit raises constructed over more than a single year to reward career demonstrations of professional excellence.

Mandate Approved by the Faculty Assembly of the College of Arts and Sciences, April 1996.
Purpose The College assumes that faculty will ordinarily discharge their professional responsibility. The periodic career review is intended to confirm that assumption by examination of evidence and reviews compiled over a five-year cycle.

In those unusual cases where this assumption is shown to be mistaken, the review process provides mechanisms to support the faculty member by returning performance to or above the level of proficiency specified in the department guidelines and required by the college.

Process Each department is to develop a statement of expectations for "proficient performance" by tenured faculty. Faculty who are judged to have not met that standard as a result of a review of their five previous annual reviews, will undergo a Stage 2a review.

The review will be conducted by the departmental personnel committee, who will make a recommendation to the department chair. The review should identify strengths and weaknesses and define specific goals that would help the faculty member improve.

Outcome For Stage 2a reviews, the chair will respond to the documentation provided by the developmental committee in writing, and with the faculty member devise a development plan that will outline the activities that will be taken to correct deficiencies, set timelines for accomplishing this work, and specify how the new activities will be monitored and assessed. The A&S Personnel Committee will review the plan and forward it to the dean for approval. The dean may take further action if goals are not met within a two year period.

University of Maryland System

 "Periodic review of faculty shall be part of a larger faculty development program at each institution designed to enhance the professional abilities of the faculty as teachers and scholars and members of the academic community. To enable the periodic review process, institutions shall commit resources not only to the process itself, but also to its accompanying faculty development plan."
Mandate Board of Regents and the Council of University System Faculty, most recently revised in 1996.

"The Board of Regents of the University of Maryland System established the principle of faculty evaluation in its policy on 'Evaluation of Performance of Faculty' and the principle of accountability for faculty workload and performance in its policy on 'Faculty Workload and Responsibilities.' To coordinate and implement these principles, the Board of Regents requires that each institution shall establish a policy on the periodic review of faculty, and procedures to implement such policy. (The) policy establishes....periodic review for faculty on indefinite tenure appointments."

Purpose Its purposes are to foster faculty development, to improve student learning; to better assess and reward faculty performance over time; to improve performance when appropriate in keeping with individual department, school, and institutional mission; and to establish a systematic record of performance.
Process Frequency: On a rotating basis for one-fifth of tenured faculty every five years.

Location: Review should be made at the department/unit level, consistent with general principles of peer review, with participation of the faculty member, colleagues, and department administrator. Department procedures are to be approved by the dean. Faculty member shall be given appropriate opportunities to respond and appeal results.

Outcome A favorable review is considered in making decisions on promotion, salary, and other rewards. If a faculty member's performance is judged as not meeting expectations, a specific development plan shall be worked out among the dean, department, and the individual faculty member.

While unfavorable periodic reviews can lead to consideration of termination, university policies for such a procedure must be followed and faculty members guaranteed normal access to academic due process.

University of Minnesota

 On June 5, 1997, the Faculty Senate approved a procedure for special peer review for faculty members whose performance is judged substandard in their annual review. If both the peer merit review committee elected for annual merit review and the head of the unit feel performance is "substantially below the goals and expectations adopted by that unit," they are to inform the faculty member in writing, give suggestions for improving performance, and establish a time period (of at least one year) to demonstrate improvement. If, at the end of the time period for improvement, both committee and head agree that improvement has not occurred, they may jointly request the dean to initiate a special peer review. The dean is required to make an independent assessment of whether the special review is necessary.
Mandate  Adopted by the Faculty Senate on June 5, 1997.
Purpose Not specified
Process A special peer review committee shall consist of five tenured faculty of equal or higher rank, one selected by the faculty member under review and the others elected by the tenured faculty of the unit. Members of the special review panel need not be members of the academic unit. Adequate opportunity is provided for the faculty member to participate in the review process and for the committee to consider alternate measures that would assist the faculty member to improve performance.

"The Special Review Panel shall prepare a report on the teaching, scholarship, service, governance, and outreach performance of the faculty member. It will also identify any supporting service or accommodation that the university should provide to enable the faculty member to improve performance."

Outcome The Panel might recommend A) that performance is adequate; B) that the faculty member's expected efforts should be reallocated; C) that the faculty member undertake specific steps to improve performance, evaluated by future regular annual review; D) that progress towards improvement be assessed by a subsequent special review; E) that inadequate performance justifies salary reduction; F) that inadequate performance justifies proceedings for termination or involuntary leave.

University of North Carolina

 In addition to annual reviews, "for each tenured faculty member, a cumulative review shall take place no less frequently than every five years."
Mandate The report on Post Tenure Review in the University of North Carolina was approved by the UNC Board of Governors on May 16, 1997. Each constituent institution is charged in one year to develop and implement policies and procedures which reflect their institutional missions.
Purpose 1) To recognize and reward exemplary faculty performance; 2) to provide for a clear plan and timetable for improvement of performance of faculty found deficient and 3) for those whose performance remains deficient, providing for the imposition of appropriate sanctions, which may, in the most serious cases, include a recommendation for discharge.
Process Procedural principles include: comprehensive assessment of all aspects of faculty performance, the inclusion of peer review, opportunities for faculty feedback as well as a mechanism for faculty response, maintenance of university procedures for due process and provision of resources necessary for faculty development.
Outcome Unsatisfactory ratings in the cumulative review will result in development plans including specific steps to and a time-line for improvement and a statement of consequences for failure to improve performance. In such cases, appropriate sanctions will be imposed which may, in the most serious cases, include a recommendation for discharge.

University of Oregon

 Post tenure review is required at least every five years and is based on the following criteria: 1) maintenance of high quality of teaching; 2) continuing professional growth, scholarly activities, creative and artistic achievement; 3) exercise of leadership in academic and administrative service; and 4) service and activities on behalf of the larger community.
Mandate Faculty legislation April 6, 1977 and amended April 10, 1985; a draft proposal is currently under review.
Purpose  "The University provides for a post-tenure review of its faculty to encourage, to reward, and to support the continuous development of tenured members of the faculty, and through the process of peer review to identify faculty members who merit special recognition or need special assistance."
Process Post tenure reviews are conducted by an elected standing committee of the unit, including three or more tenured faculty members, of whom one may be outside the unit. The procedure for post-tenure review relates closely to the regular review process for faculty for promotion and tenure; any review for promotion will be substituted for the post tenure review. The post tenure review is to be conducted at regular intervals regardless of the rank of the faculty member, except for persons within three years of retirement. The information considered includes the faculty member's statement of accomplishments, goals, and plans, up-to-date vita and bibliography, accumulated annual faculty evaluation reports and faculty member's responses. Additional information such as a statement from the unit head summarizing duties and responsibilities, student evaluations, letters of evaluation (outside and inside), etc., may be requested.

Copies of the report of the post-tenure review are sent to the faculty member and appropriate administrative officials. The faculty member may submit a written response to the report within 30 days.

Outcome Post tenure reviews are used to recognize excellence and/or to provide career support. Faculty rewards may include merit salary increase, reallocation of unit resources on a temporary basis to allow opportunity for development of new courses or additional research opportunity, additional research or clerical support, university-level recognition. Opportunities to improve performance include consultation with colleagues for purposes of assistance in problem areas, reallocation of department assignments to facilitate updating and improvement in teaching or research, access to a center for improvement of instruction or scholarly effort, personal counseling.
No action resulting or derived from post tenure review may be taken until a faculty member has been given adequate opportunities for improvement and an additional post tenure review has been conducted.

Changes in the proposed draft include the following:

  • establishment of the professional expectations of individual faculty members in recognition of the fact that expectations and goals of individual faculty members may change throughout their professional careers

  • incorporation of the annual review procedure. The annual review is self-evaluative in nature and is conducted by the department head. The purpose of the self-evaluation is to define expectations and goals for individual faculty members, and in the process document specific accomplishments.

  • conduct a "third-year review" that parallels the process of the annual review for all tenured faculty members. Associate Professors are reviewed every three years until promotion to Professor. For full Professors, the comprehensive sixth-year review substitutes for every other third-year review.

  • conduct a "sixth-year review" that is a comprehensive post tenure review of all full professors every six years. The procedure parallels the process for post tenure review that is currently in place.

  • inclusion of a post tenure incentive program to acknowledge and reward outstanding performance. At the option of the faculty member, funds may be distributed as a one-year salary stipend or as discretionary support funds.

  • If an additional post tenure review finds the faculty member unwilling or unable to perform at acceptable levels, altered career plan counseling or early retirement opportunities may be provided by the University.

University of Texas System

 The University Texas Board of Regents supports a system of periodic evaluation of all tenured faculty. Periodic evaluation is intended to enhance and protect, not diminish, the important guarantees of tenure and academic freedom. Evaluation of tenured faculty will continue to be performed annually with comprehensive review of all tenured faculty performed every six years. Guidelines for the conduct and consequences of these reviews are specified. Each component institution of the university of Texas System is required to develop an institutional policy and plan consistent with these guidelines. Evaluations are to begin no later than fall semester 1998.
Mandate Approved by the University of Texas System Board of Regents November 14, 1996 and by state of Texas legislative actions to amend the Texas Education Code and on a rider to the General Appropriations Act. (See footnote below)*
Purpose Periodic evaluation is to provide guidance for continuing and meaningful faculty development; to assist faculty to enhance professional skills and goals; to refocus academic and professional efforts, when appropriate; and to assure that faculty members are meeting their responsibilities to the University and state of Texas.
Process As noted, each component institution of the University of Texas System is to implement specific policies. Process guidelines require streamlining and integration with the annual evaluation process, when appropriate. The evaluation reviews the faculty member's duty assignments based on relevant materials, including those submitted by the faculty member. In accordance with institutional policy, peer review committees may be the initial evaluator or the review may be conducted by the department chairperson or dean. Peer review committees are to be representative and be appointed by the dean in consultation with relevant faculty. Results of the review are to be communicated in writing to the faculty member, department chairperson/dean, the chief academic officer and the president for review and appropriate action.
Outcome Uses of the report's contents include a) for individuals performing well as a basis for salary recommendations, award nominations or other forms of performance recognition; b) the provision of institutional support for individuals whose performance indicates this would be beneficial and c) for individuals found to be performing unsatisfactorily a review is conducted to determine if good cause exists for termination under the Regents' approved dismissal for cause policy. Termination proceedings on the basis of periodic performance evaluation shall be only for incompetency, neglect of duties or other good cause shown. An opportunity to refer the matter to alternative dispute resolution other than the dismissal for cause procedure is permitted.
*Action by the Texas legislature subsequent to Regent's action in November 1996 require amendments to the UT System guidelines. Action by the Regents on these changes is expected in Summer 1997. Changes which impact the November 1996 guidelines include: a changed review initiation date to Fall Semester 1998; periodic evaluation to be performed every 6 rather than 5 years and modification of language regarding dismissal for cause permitting availability of alternative dispute resolution procedures. These proposed amendments have been incorporated in the above summary. An example of implementation of the regents' policies can be found in the policy adopted by the Faculty Council of the University of Texas at Austin in January 1997 which includes the use of peer review.

University of Virginia

Mandate Office of the Vice President and Provost issued in 1996.
Purpose Annual and long-term reviews are occasions "for self-evaluation and reassessment of the role a faculty member is playing, which may evolve significantly during the course of a career."
Process Each faculty member shall undergo an annual performance review that incorporates reviews of teaching, scholarship, and service.

"To be most effective, the review should, at least periodically, not only deal with the previous year's performance, but also take a longer view, one that is consistent with the cycle of academic performance and change."

Outcome Reviews should acknowledge good work, point out areas for improvement, and identify productive new uses of a faculty member's talents and where additional resources could energize a faculty member whose morale has run low or could lift an already productive member to new levels of achievement. At the same time, plans should be devised to address deficiencies. If acceptable performance is not achieved within a prescribed period of time, appropriate sanctions will be imposed in accordance with university procedures.

University of Wisconsin/Madison

 "Each departmental executive committee shall establish written criteria and procedures governing the periodic review of each tenured faculty member.

The criteria should reflect the overall mission of the department and should be sufficiently flexible to accommodate faculty with differing responsibilities. In developing such criteria, departments may draw on statements used in their current faculty review procedures, such as merit or promotion review." Academic freedom and non-discrimination must be assured
Mandate The Faculty Senate in 1978 with subsequent amendments in 1993 and 1996.
Purpose The purpose is to assess periodically each faculty member's activities and performance, in accordance with the mission of the department college, and institution so as to determine that the faculty member is meeting his or her obligations to the university and the State of Wisconsin. The review is to be appropriately linked to the merit process and "should not involve the creation of unnecessary additional bureaucracy."
Process Reviews shall be made of a faculty member's performance over at least the previous 5 year period. Each review is conducted by one or more tenured faculty members. No individual shall serve as a reviewer if the faculty member objects.

Evidence includes CV, annual activity reports, teaching evaluations, other evidence of accomplishment, and a summary of career plans for future. Faculty members are provided with a written summary of the review and are given the opportunity to prepare written response.
Outcome A copy of the summary of the review and any written responses by the faculty member will be placed in the personnel file of the faculty member for uses deemed appropriate by the departmental executive committee. If performance difficulties are identified, a remediation plan is developed. Insufficient progress in a specified time period will result in disciplinary action, including dismissal.

Any recommendations for action in response to the results of the review should be forwarded by the department chair to the appropriate individuals or bodies.

The department shall preserve in the faculty member's file all documents and a record of any action taken as a result of the review.

Return to Proposal for Post-Tenure Review Documents IndexReturn to the Post-Tenure Review Documents Index

Beaumont Tower image returns reader to the Michigan State University Home PageCopyright 1997 Michigan State University

On-line Documents Created: March 27, 1997
Updated: September 25, 1997

URL: http://www.msu.edu/dig/tenure/univer.html