Download this P&P in .doc or .pdf format Back to P&P main page
Southern Polytechnic State University
Policy and Procedure Manual
P&P Number: 803.0905		 Original Date: January 1997
Last Revision: April 2000
Current Revision: February 2002

 

Post-Tenure Review
 

Overview

This P&P includes the following main sections:

  • Background
  • Eligibility for post-tenure review
  • Criteria for post-tenure review
  • Post-tenure review procedure
  • Post-tenure review appeals process

Background

The purpose of the post-tenure review is to examine the strengths and weaknesses of individual tenured faculty members, on a rotating basis. As such the review (1) provides deserved praise to those who have been proceeding successfully in their careers and (2) gives constructive advice to those who need it. The post-tenure review is part of a culture of continuous improvement that has been developed at Southern Polytechnic State University.

Eligibility for Post-Tenure Review

The table below notes how post-tenure review applies to various categories of faculty.

 

Faculty Category

Eligibility for Post-Tenure Review
 

 

All tenured faculty members who are not administrators and not retiring in the next year

Faculty members undergo post-tenure review five years after their most recent post-tenure review, the awarding of tenure, or the awarding of a promotion. For example, a spring 2002 vote on tenure in the Board of Regents would be followed by a spring 2007 post-tenure review.

Note:

A leave-of-absence stops the clock on a faculty member's post-tenure review cycle.

 

 

Tenured faculty members holding primarily administrative positions

Faculty members who are administrators do not undergo post-tenure review unless or until they have returned to a teaching position with few or no administrative responsibilities for a period of not less than three years.
 

 

Faculty members planning to retire no later than the year after a post-tenure review would normally occur

Faculty members are exempt from post-tenure review if they have notified the vice president for academic affairs in writing of their plans to retire-assuming the retirement will occur no later than the end of the academic year following the year when the post-tenure review would have taken place.
 
 

Notes:

1.    Upon agreement between the faculty member and school dean, the post-tenure review may substitute for the faculty member's annual review for the year in which the post-tenure review occurs.

2.    If a faculty has a promotion package successfully reviewed by the university in the same year of a scheduled post-tenure review, the promotion review can be substituted for the post-tenure review.

Criteria for Post-Tenure Review

The criteria for a satisfactory post-tenure review comprise the following areas described in P&P 803.075 (Faculty Activities):

  • Teaching
  • Service
  • Academic achievement (also called scholarship)
  • Professional growth and development

Notes:

  • In applying the criteria listed above, it is understood that a faculty member's contributions to the institution might change over time.
  • A faculty member's cumulative contributions over his or her career, as well as his or her performance during the previous five years, should be considered.

 

No.

Criteria Description

1.

Teaching

Faculty must provide evidence of competent teaching. Activities that fulfill this requirement are described in P&P 803.075 (Faculty Activities). As part of the documentation, candidates for post-tenure review are required to submit (a) results of official SPSU student evaluations for courses taught in each of the three previous years (see P&P 803.0701: Student Evaluation of Faculty) and (b) evidence that student evaluations have been used to improve teaching performance. Additional evidence may include peer reviews, administrative reviews, alumni evaluations, student comments, and noteworthy contributions such as examples of curriculum and course development.

2.

Service

Faculty must provide evidence of a record of excellent service to SPSU and, optionally, to the profession and/or community. Activities that fulfill this requirement are presented in P&P 803.075 (Faculty Activities).

3.

Professional Growth and Development

Faculty must provide evidence of active professional growth and development over time. Activities that fulfill this requirement are presented in P&P 803.075 (Faculty Activities).

4.

Academic Achievement

Faculty must provide evidence of solid academic achievement (also referred to as scholarship). Activities that fulfill this requirement are presented in P& 803.075 (Faculty Activities). Note that the Faculty Activities P&P incorporates the Boyer/Glassick model with its four types of scholarship - i.e., the scholarship of teaching, application, integration, and discovery.

 

Post-Tenure Review Procedure

Post-tenure review is carried out in March by the campus peer committee.

 

Step

Procedure Description

1.

Preparation of Package

The faculty member prepares the package required for the evaluation and submits it to the dean by February 15. It must contain the following documents:

  • Cover page that includes name, program, and a complete table of contents for the package--which must be paged.

  • Resume in official SPSU format.

  • Term-by-term list of all courses taught at SPSU since awarding of tenure, last promotion, or last post-tenure review.

  • Narrative-a maximum five-page, single-spaced section describing the accomplishments during the period under review and plans for the future, all in the context of the four main criteria for evaluation (teaching, service, academic achievement, and professional growth and development.)

  • Summary prepared by the dean of the faculty member's annual performance reviews for the years under consideration.

  • Summaries of official SPSU student evaluations for all academic-year courses taught during the period under review.

Note:

Additional documentation of teaching effectiveness may be submitted but must not exceed 20 pages.

2.

Program Peer Committee Review

  • The dean gives the post-tenure review package to the program peer committee. (See the note below for an alternative approach.)

  • The committee reviews the package and submits a letter to the dean.

  • The committee letter comments on strengths and weaknesses of the faculty member and indicates whether the candidate's performance is satisfactory or unsatisfactory.

  • For assistant and associate professors, the committee letter provides guidance on progress toward promotion.

Note:

By a 2/3 vote of tenure-tack faculty and with permission of the dean and VPAA, a program may defer to the school peer committee and thus not include the program peer committee review in the post-tenure review process.

3.

School Peer Committee Review

  • The dean gives the post-tenure review package to the school peer committee, along with the program committee letter if there is one.

  • The committee reviews the package and submits a letter to the dean.

  • The committee letter comments on strengths and weaknesses of the faculty member and indicates whether the candidate's performance is satisfactory or unsatisfactory.

  • For assistant and associate professors, the committee letter provides guidance on progress toward promotion.

4.

Dean's Review

  • The dean reviews the package, along with accompanying peer committee letters.

  • The dean writes a letter to the campus peer committee, noting the candidate's performance as either satisfactory or unsatisfactory.

  • The dean forwards the package to the campus peer committee, along with his or her letter and the peer committee letter(s).

5.

Campus Peer Committee Review

  • Based upon the material it reviews, the campus peer committee determines whether the candidate should be given a satisfactory or unsatisfactory rating for the post-tenure review.

  • The results of the review are communicated both to the faculty member and the faculty member's dean through a letter written by the committee. The letter should disclose the following points:

    • The result of the review as satisfactory or unsatisfactory
    • The vote tally of the committee
    • Comments on strengths and weaknesses
    • Adequate supporting detail in the event of an unsatisfactory finding

  • The faculty member has the right to include a written response to the letter described above. That response becomes a part of the post-tenure review package. The entire package is filed in the faculty member's personnel file in Human Resources and Academic Affairs.

6.

Meeting of Faculty Member and Dean

  • Whether a faculty member's performance is found to be satisfactory or unsatisfactory, the dean meets with the faculty member to discuss results of the post-tenure review.

  • In the event of an unsatisfactory finding, the dean and the faculty member agree upon a development plan for improvement-which must be in place by the end of the academic year in which the review takes place.

  • If the faculty member and dean cannot agree on a plan, the VPAA meets with both parties and produces a final plan.

  • The plan itself must have the following features:

    • Clearly defined goals and outcomes
    • Specific types of activities expected of the faculty member
    • Clear time frame of not more than three years
    • Specific reference to the means of monitoring the faculty member's progress

7.

Approval of Development Plan by Dean

  • A development plan resulting from an unsatisfactory finding will be forwarded to the VPAA for approval.

  • If the VPAA does not approve of the plan as submitted, he or she will meet with the dean and faculty member to discuss his or her concerns and will draft the final plan to be used.

8.

Approved Development Plan

  • The final form of the development plan to be followed must be placed in writing and signed by the faculty member, the dean, and the VPAA.

  • Copies must be given to the faculty member, the dean, and the VPAA.

Note:

The faculty member is responsible for completing a substantial part of the plan. The dean and VPAA are jointly responsible for funding the development plan, if university funding is required.

9.

Monitoring Faculty Member's Progress on Development Plan

  • The progress of a development plan resulting from an unsatisfactory finding will be monitored and communicated to the faculty member by his or her dean, at least once per term.

    Note: Faculty member's progress regarding the development plan should be part of his or her annual reviews.

  • The decision as to whether a development plan has been substantially completed rests with the faculty member's dean.

10.

Non-fulfillment of Development Plan

In the unlikely event that the faculty member does not substantially complete the development plan, the following people will meet to discuss reasons and remedies for non-fulfillment:

  • Faculty member
  • Current program peer committee chairperson (if a program committee is used)
  • Current school peer committee chairperson
  • Current campus peer committee chairperson
  • Dean
  • Vice president for academic affairs

Note:

Final decisions rest with the vice president for academic affairs.

 

Post-Tenure Review Appeals Process

A faculty member has the right to appeal the results of post-tenure review, as indicated below:

 

The Case

People to Appeal To
 

 

Decision of the Campus Peer Committee

VPAA
 

 

The development plan

VPAA
 

 

Decision on completion of the development plan

VPAA
 

 

Decision by dean

VPAA
 

 

Decisions of vice president for academic affairs

President
 

 

Decision of president

Board of Regents, University System of Georgia
Back to Top