DOC I-06-11
PROPOSAL TO THE ACADEMIC SENATE
TITLE: Post Tenure Review
Report and Recommendations
SUBMITTED BY: Provost Council Foundational Issues Committee
DATE: October 16, 2006
ACTION: To Be Determined: The document has been assigned to all standing committees with the Faculty Affairs Committee taking primary responsibility for finalizing the document. Once this is completed, the action will be assigned.
Memorandum
To: David W. Biers, President
UD Academic Senate
c: Fred P. Pestello, Provost
From: Patricia W. Meyers, Dean and Chair
Provost’s Council Foundational Issues Committee
Post Tenure Review
Date: October 15, 2006
Subject: Post Tenure Review Report
(PTR) and Recommendations
Transmittal
for Senate Consideration and Action
On behalf of the Foundational Issues Committee on Post Tenure Review (see members listed in the report), I am pleased to forward to you for Senate consideration and action the committee’s final report and recommendations.
Philosophy and Purpose: The report includes a description of the philosophy behind post-tenure review (PTR) as the committee viewed it. The committee returned to this philosophy often—honing and reinforcing it throughout its year of work. Because the philosophy espoused strongly by the committee differs markedly from some initial conceptions of post-tenure review, I summarize it here as a helpful preview of the mindset for the entire document.
During the eleven months of its deliberations, the committee built a strong consensus that the purpose of PTR is to focus upon (quotes are from committee minutes) “how tenured faculty contribute to the increased excellence of UD.” The committee called for “an inclusive community approach in which departments are allowed to develop processes that are appropriate for them, within certain overall guidelines.” The committee asserted from the outset that the major goal of PTR is “about recognizing, encouraging and supporting a variety of productive activity portfolios over the faculty career” with faculty development being both an integral purpose and outcome of the PTR process.
Over the career life cycle a faculty member’s interests and goals can and often do shift and change. The committee believes that its report and the process to implement its recommendations can help units to frame and conduct PTR as a positive influence upon each tenured faculty member’s vocation over the life of her/his tenured career at UD. The committee strongly recommends that units and faculty approach PTR as a regular peer review process grounded in supportive continuous improvement of the excellence of each faculty member as she/he lives out their professorial vocation while also contributing to the mission and goals of the University.
Overall Recommendation: Building upon this philosophy, the committee recommends a set of general standards (see Section V of the report) within which all PTR processes at UD will be conducted. Within these standards, each unit (department, school or library, as appropriate) is asked to create and implement its own process for conducting PTR. Thus, as examples, should a department wish to use PTR as an occasion to recognize extraordinary contributions of faculty or to combine PTR with existing reviews (such as sabbatical reviews), that is allowable and encouraged within the proposed standards.
Implementation Alert: Since the committee concluded its deliberations, an implementation concern has been raised. Several department chairs have reacted positively to the potential efficiencies of conducting PTR in conjunction with eligibility for sabbatical application. Sabbatical eligibility currently is on a seven year cycle. UD’s PTR policy requires PTR reviews “at least once during every six year interval.” Combining the two reviews may require a change in the UD Faculty Handbook regarding the maximum time cycle for PTR from six to seven years.
Brief History of
Report Generation, Interim Reports and Reviews:
October 2006 Formal transmittal of report to the Senate
Post-Tenure Review
Committee (PTRC) Final Report
(Reviewed and supported
by Provost Council,
Recommendation: We,
the members of the PTRC, recommend the formation of a “second phase” PTR group,
now that the first PTRC has concluded its work of providing the guiding
document. This new group could report to
Assoc. Provost Joe Untener or to the Provost. Its primary charge would be to oversee the
implementation process for university-wide PTR and to design appropriate
information-sharing across units as the individual unit policies and procedures
are being created. There is precedent
for having a new group because the all-university Promotion and Tenure Committee
process has now been taken up by a new and more broadly representative
implementation committee.
The outgoing PTRC
recommends that such a group be formed now by the Provost and that it include a
few members of the outgoing PTRC to provide history and
continuity. The new group may
well include members of the Academic Senate, its committees, and ECAS, as well
as representatives from each of the schools and the College.
Final Report of the Post Tenure Review Committee
(One of the Provost’s Foundational Committees 2005-06)
I. Post-Tenure Review Committee (PTRC):
Charge and Membership
The
“Each tenured faculty member must
be evaluated by peers, using a method acceptable to the department, at least
once during each six-year interval.” [M.)
University Policy on Faculty Evaluation, C. Conduct of Faculty Evaluations,
section 2.b.]
The Provost and the Provost’s Council empanelled and charged the PTRC to investigate and reflect upon best practices for post-tenure review and to propose recommended statements and guidelines to assist in full implementation of the UD policy across all academic units. (The complete charge to the PTRC is included at Appendix A.)
Toward these ends, the Post-Tenure Review (PTR) committee
has reviewed literature and has engaged in discussions to define the critical
issues for post-tenure review at the
Members of the PTRC:
Name
|
Title |
Address |
|
Deb Bickford |
Associate Provost for Academic Affairs & Learning Initiatives Director - LTC |
|
|
Harry Gerla |
Associate Dean and Professor |
Office of the Dean |
|
Sawyer Hunley |
Member, Faculty Development Cmte. |
SOEAP Counselor Ed. & Human Services |
|
Vinod Jain |
Professor Chair, |
Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering |
|
Fred Jenkins |
Head, Collection Management |
Roesch Library |
|
Pat Meyers, Chair |
Dean and Professor |
|
|
David Myszka |
Professor Member, Faculty Development Cmte. |
Engineering Technology |
|
Fran Pestello |
Chair, Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work Professor |
College of Arts & Sciences Sociology/Anthropology |
|
John Rapp |
Professor Representing the Executive Committee of the Academic Senate |
Economics & Finance Dept. |
|
Rebecca Wells |
Professor (ECAS Member 2006) |
Management & Mktg. Dept. |
II. Overall Recommendation
By
- a clear statement of the purpose of the peer review;
- the process for identifying a peer review committee;
- detail as to process, timing, and review events;
- a description of the content of the review committee’s report;
- a statement indicating who receives the peer review committee’s report;
- an explanation of follow up activities for the faculty member being reviewed, including the possibilities for further development, remediation, and/or sanctions.
The PTRC strongly advises that process descriptions and policies within the units be clear and concise, not to exceed roughly five pages of text.
The philosophy, guiding principles and standards for
post-tenure review at the
Note: At the launch of a new PTR system, provision will be made for sorting the faculty who were tenured more than six years prior to the implementation of the system across the upcoming five years.
The recommended timeline for the approval and implementation of post-tenure review processes includes the following:
Proposed
Timeline For Post-Tenure Review Process
(revised
|
Date |
Activity |
|
Mid December, 2005 |
PTRC completes final recommendations and report |
|
Early January, 2006 |
Final report transmitted to provost (for provost’s council) and senate executive committee. Comments and reactions solicited for PTRC. |
|
January and February, 2006 |
Deans solicit comments and reactions from department chairs (and other faculty). |
|
|
Present document to academic senate for discussion. |
|
Late February and early March, 2006 |
PTRC makes any revisions, following reactions from above groups. |
|
|
Endorsement by full academic senate. |
|
Early May, 2006 |
Endorsement by provost’s council. |
|
Fall Semester 2006 |
Units asked to convert guidelines into specific policies and procedures. PTR seminars begin for deans, chairs and interested faculty. |
|
January -March 2007 |
Unit plans submitted to deans, provost and associate provost for review. |
|
|
Units begin full implementation of post-tenure review. |
III. Philosophy of Post-Tenure Review at the
The
The faculty is a largely self-regulating community of teachers and scholars dedicated to the generation, transmission, and application of knowledge. The academic community holds at least three expectations of its members in order to carry out its mission. One of the expectations of the community is that membership in it entails a career-long commitment to developing one’s skills in generating, transmitting, and applying knowledge. The process of generating, transmitting, and applying knowledge is dynamic. This implies that the organization is committed to providing development opportunities throughout one’s career. The second expectation is that a faculty member should regularly evaluate his or her own effectiveness as a teacher, scholar and community servant; indeed, reflection is a key component of learning. The third expectation is that colleagues serve an important role in helping provide insights and ideas through involvement in a regular evaluation process, which is shared with one’s colleagues to help enhance their effectiveness as teachers, scholars, and providers of service to the community. Fulfillment of these expectations is a necessity for the community to thrive and grow. Post-tenure peer review is a community-based mechanism to assist faculty members to develop and to meet these expectations.
Given these expectations,
faculty are entitled to an unbiased evaluation of their performance that serves
as a source of feedback and a guide for professional development. The primary
purpose of the post-tenure review process is to promote development for tenured
faculty in the spirit of the Marianist traditions of
community and the integration of learning.
A review process that is based on informed reflection, and that is
expressive of the culture of the university and of each department, will lead
to a life-long commitment toward excellence.
A secondary purpose of PTR is to identify faculty who are performing
below acceptable University community standards.
IV. Guiding Principles
Through our reading
of the literature, especially of best practices and lessons learned from other universities,
and our own extensive deliberations, we believe that the following principles
are important to meaningful post-tenure review at the
From our research,
best practice post-tenure review processes:
1. are attentive to the work environment and the quality of faculty work life when considering the productivity of tenured faculty. PTR looks at all areas of responsibility (teaching, scholarship, and service) in a balanced way. It reflects the unit’s promotion and tenure policies. Likewise, it recognizes: (a) departmental expectations and support, (b) each faculty member’s unique set of contributions, and (c) changes in those contributions over a faculty member’s career. It also looks at how faculty activity supports the mission of the unit and of the University.
2. involve a committee(s) of peers, with both commendations and recommendations for improvement sent to chairs and deans for implementation. Remediation and rewards should be administrative matters. If there are significant variations between annual reviews and the results of PTR, deans should examine both processes to ensure that they are fair and rigorous.
3. outline an ongoing formative and a periodic summative evaluation process for faculty who have achieved tenure, and include definitions and descriptions of procedures, timelines, and possible outcomes.
4. observe a unit PTR plan that devotes comprehensive attention to each faculty member's performance in teaching, research, and service; and is tied clearly to university, college, department, and program missions.
5. build upon but are not necessarily limited by existing evaluation structures (e.g., merit evaluation). Thus, PTR processes do not need to be a totally separate evaluation track. Units have the option of incorporating existing review mechanisms. Promotion reviews, sabbatical applications reviews, and other forms of peer review may take the place of some or all of the PTR process in a given cycle.
6. provide a system of checks and balances by incorporating multiple methods (e.g., observation, record/vita review, student outcomes), and multiple sources (e.g., students, peers, department chair, dean, etc.).
7. are created by and with tenured faculty and published by a designated date. This assures accountability. A unit’s PTR plan becomes part of the unit’s permanent policies and procedures and is distributed in a timely way to all faculty after being taken through appropriate approval processes.
8. are developmental. There is an assumption that most faculty are doing a good job and that PTR will help them to become better. In the relatively few cases of serious underperformers, the process is intended to help them get back on track.
9. constitute a real review but are not onerous to execute. Faculty may already feel that the demands of work have greatly increased. The purpose is as much to know what each other is doing and model for junior faculty.
10. provide informational support for Chairs and Deans to address the problem of non-productive faculty.
V. (Recommended) Standards
Based upon best practices drawn from experience at other universities and our understanding of the Catholic and Marianist heritage of our University, we recommend the following section on the standards by which the PTR will be conducted:
The standards below are minimum
standards. A unit is free to exceed
these standards in its post-tenure peer review process. For instance, a unit might wish to conduct
reviews more frequently than the required interval of once every six
years. Such a provision exceeds the
standards in these guidelines and a unit is at liberty to adopt that time
interval for its review process. A unit,
however, is not free, except in extraordinary circumstances, to have a
post-tenure review process that does not at least comport with these standards. Thus, for example, a unit should not provide
for reviews less frequently than every 6 years, as this would not meet the
standard as written.
1. As required by UD policy, the PTR will occur at least every 6 years for each tenured faculty member based on the date of original tenure.
2.
The PTR is not a “re-tenuring”
or “re-promotion” decision. Rather, it
is a developmental and evaluative process to assess and communicate ways in
which each individual faculty member continues to be a contributing and valued
member of the UD faculty.
3. The primary persons who make post-tenure review evaluations of tenured faculty generally must themselves be tenured faculty in the same unit or department. PTR is intended to be a peer review.
4. The areas in which the performance of a tenured faculty member are evaluated for PTR generally will include scholarly activity/research, teaching and service.
5. Each unit shall include in its PTR process a peer review of teaching that is not based solely upon student evaluations.
6. The evaluators must create a written report and the faculty member under review must be given a meaningful opportunity to challenge any findings of fact or conclusions contained in the review. The faculty member must be given sufficient time to review and comment upon the report. If the parties within a unit cannot come to an agreement, the dispute will be referred to the normal university grievance procedure (see UD Faculty Handbook).
7.
The
post-tenure review process should make remediation the first response to a
conclusion that the faculty member is not meeting the standards expected of a
tenure member of the
8.
The
post-tenure review process must provide for meaningful consequences for the
faculty member who, after realistic opportunities for remediation, will not or
cannot meet the standards expected of a tenured member of the
VI. Support for PTR
The University, the College, the
Schools and the Departments are encouraged to offer and/or take advantage of
supports and developmental activities that can help assure excellence in the
implementation of post-tenure review. (A list of resources provided by the
In addition, members of the PTR Committee strongly
recommend the design of a developmental seminar for department chairs,
associate deans and deans that will assist them in launching and sustaining a
PTR process that fosters frank feedback and useful development for individual
faculty.
To this end, a “just-in-time” developmental
seminar will be offered to requesting units by the
VII. Resources
Each unit must consider its own culture and the standards of its own discipline in writing its post-tenure review document. It should also write the document in light of its own mission statement and that of the University. There is no one-size fits all model; this is a community endeavor to set community standards. Rather than providing a model document, we offer a list of resources to help each unit put forth criteria and standards suited to its needs.
Background Materials
American
Association of University Professors. Post
–tenure Review: An AAUP Response. URL: http://www.aaup.org/statements/Redbook/rbpostn.htm
Aper, J.P., and Judith E. Fry. "A Survey
of Post-Tenure Review Practices." Academic
Leader: 5.
Bickford,
Deborah, and Rebecca Wells. The
Quality of Faculty Work Life at the
Doe,
John B. Conceptual Planning: A Guide to a Better Planet, 3d ed.
Fry,
Judith E. An Executive Summary of the Results of the National Survey on
Post-Tenure Review Policies and Practices at Colleges and Universities in the
Hornum, Barbara G., and Christine M. Licata.
"What Post-Tenure Review Can Achievement." The Chronicle of Higher Education (2001): b20-b21.
Licata,
Christine M. "Precepts for Post-Tenure Reviews." Trusteeship. Nov.-Dec. 1999: 8-13.
Licata,
Christine M. and Joseph C. Morreale. Post-Tenure
Faculty Review and Renewal: Experienced
Voices.
Licata,
Christine M. and Betsy Brown. Post-Tenure Faculty Review and Renewal
II: Reporting Results & Shaping
Policy.
McMillin, Linda A., and Jerry Berberet.
A New Academic Compact: Revisioning the Relationship between Faculty and Their
Institutions.
Simpson, Kevin, and Alicia Caldwell.
"CU Putting Faculty Reviews up for Grade."
Smith, Chris. Theory and the Art of Communications Design. State of the University Press, 1997.
Some Sample Policies
Existing UD Policies:
SBA
http://academic.udayton.edu/SBAPolicies/Linked%20Files/Post%20Tenure%20Review.htm
External University-wide Policies:
IUPUI Faculty/Librarian Review and Enhancement (includes links to departmental policies)
http://www.opd.iupui.edu/flre/documentation.html
http://www.calvin.edu/admin/provost/fac_hb/chap_3/3_9.htm
External Departmental
Policies:
http://www.geol.vt.edu/adminstr/PTR.html
Dept. of Chemical Engineering,
http://www.che.utah.edu/facultyStaff/departmentPolicy/
Dept. of Political Science, Univl
of
http://www.politicalscience.hawaii.edu/policies/08postenurereview.htm
Dept. of Anthropology,
http://anthropology.missouri.edu/people/facultydocs/post-tenure%20policy.doc
Dept. of History,
http://www.cas.sc.edu/hist/administration/policies.html
Dept. of Instruction & Teacher Education,
VIII. Primary References Used by the PTRC
Aper, J.P., and Judith E. Fry. "A Survey
of Post-Tenure Review Practices." Academic
Leader: 5.
Bickford,
Deborah, and Rebecca Wells. The
Quality of Faculty Work Life at the
Doe,
John B. Conceptual Planning: A Guide to a Better Planet, 3d ed.
Fry,
Judith E. An Executive Summary of the Results of the National Survey on
Post-Tenure Review Policies and Practices at Colleges and Universities in the
Hornum, Barbara G., and Christine M. Licata.
"What Post-Tenure Review Can Achievement." The Chronicle of Higher Education (2001): b20-b21.
Licata,
Christine M. "Precepts for Post-Tenure Reviews." Trusteeship. Nov.-Dec. 1999: 8-13.
Licata, Christine
M. and Joseph C. Morreale. Post-Tenure
Faculty Review and Renewal: Experienced
Voices.
Licata,
Christine M. and Betsy Brown. Post-Tenure Faculty Review and Renewal
II: Reporting Results & Shaping
Policy.
McMillin, Linda A., and Jerry Berberet.
A New Academic Compact: Revisioning the Relationship between Faculty and Their
Institutions.
Simpson, Kevin, and Alicia Caldwell.
"CU Putting Faculty Reviews up for Grade."
Smith, Chris. Theory and the Art of Communications Design. State of the University Press, 1997.
University of
Procedures.”
University of
University of Dayton Department of Philosophy. “Peer Evaluation of Tenured Faculty.”
Appendix A
Foundations for the Vision of Excellence
Post-Tenure Review Committee
Charge:
The UD Faculty Handbook mandates Post-Tenure Review (PTR) to occur at least every six years for tenured faculty. PTR has been implemented by some UD departments but by no means all.
Our team will propose guidelines to be shared with the Provost’s Council that will assist the deans as they work with the chairs to craft and implement Post-Tenure Review for their College or School.
These guidelines will reflect “best practices” nationally. They will allow some flexibility so that departments are able to accommodate their promotion, tenure, and evaluation policies and procedures.
Activities:
1. Review the literature to identify best practices and learn from mistakes of others.
2. Consider these best practices in light of our UD culture and its commitment to community, academic freedom, and fairness.
3. Offer guidelines for good practice, consistency, and rigor across UD’s PTR processes.
Prepared for the PTRC by Pat
Meyers, Committee Chair
Reviewed and approved by
Provost Pestello,
Appendix B
LTC Resources to Support Development and Implementation
of PTR Processes and Subsequent Faculty Development
Preparing PTR
Processes
- Consultation services:
- advice on how to proceed
- provide examples of measurements units/departments might want to include
- provide sample evaluation procedures
- provide examples of best practices from other institutions
- If need exists, create workshops for units to develop PTR processes
- Provide resources including web site materials, web links, books, etc.
- Provide expertise and serve as clearinghouse for campus practices and best practices beyond
Implementing PTR
Processes
- Just-in-time training for implementation
- work with PTR committees to develop peer review expertise
- work with administrative teams of deans
- Make available collection of resources, including articles, manuals, web links, etc.
- Provide expertise and serve as clearinghouse for campus practices and best practices beyond
Faculty
Development
- Provide confidential consultations, including classroom observations
- Provide resources including web site materials, web links, LTC library, etc.
- Provide teaching mentors when needed
- Offer expertise in best practices
- Develop customized programming if demand exists
- Provide regular, development and confidential input, including the midterm instructional diagnosis, interpretation of student evaluation results, etc.
- Tap into campus’ most talented colleagues to provide support
- Provide regular programming on pedagogical techniques, technology-enhanced learning, and writing and publication skills
- Offer services to include development of research skills
- Sponsor Faculty Exchange Series
- Offer the opportunity to teach in the LTC Studio and participate in its community of practice
- Administer LTC Innovation Grants Competition to support faculty development