| (1) | (2) | (3) |
| Colorado | Arizona State | Arizona |
| Iowa | University of California at Davis | Kentucky |
| Oregon | Colorado State | Minnesota |
| Rutgers | Florida Louisville Maryland North Carolina Texas Virginia Wisconsin |
University Post Tenure Review policy summaries appear in alphabetical order on the following pages.
Arizona State University, Main Campus
| Policy Summary | 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
| Policy Summary | 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
| Policy Summary | "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. |
| Policy Summary | 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. |
| Policy Summary | "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*
| Policy Summary | 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. |
| Policy Summary | 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. |
| Policy Summary | "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)
| Policy Summary | "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.
| Policy Summary | 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. |
| Policy Summary | "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. |
| Policy Summary | 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. |
| Policy Summary | 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. |
| Policy Summary | 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. |
Changes in the proposed draft include the following:
|
| Policy Summary | 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. |
| 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. |
| Policy Summary | "Each departmental executive committee
shall establish written criteria and
procedures governing the periodic review
of each tenured faculty member.
| |
| 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.
| |
| 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 the Post-Tenure Review Documents Index
Copyright 1997 Michigan State University On-line Documents Created: March 27, 1997
URL: http://www.msu.edu/dig/tenure/univer.html