|
Southern
Polytechnic State University |
Original Date: January 1997 July 19, 2007
To be Reviewed on or Before Date: Nov. 5, 2019 |
|
Post-Tenure Review |
||
|
|
|
|
|
Contents |
This P&P includes the following main sections: · Purpose · Who shall be subject to review and when · Criteria · Review procedure · Appeals procedure |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purpose |
The purpose of post-tenure review shall be one of faculty enhancement. It is not a review of tenure; it is a review of tenured faculty. It is to facilitate identification of the strengths and weaknesses of individual faculty. In most cases post-tenure review should reveal that the faculty member is performing satisfactorily. The process of post-tenure review should not require a great deal of preparation time on the part of faculty. In particular, it should not be as detailed as an application for tenure. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who Shall Be Subject to Review and When |
A. All tenured faculty, except those holding primarily administrative positions and faculty soon to retire as discussed below, will undergo post-tenure review every five years following either tenure or their most recent successful review for promotion. A successful review for promotion will restart the post-tenure review clock. That is, a faculty member reviewed for promotion will be subject to post-tenure review at five-year intervals following his or her most recent promotional review or post-tenure review. A leave-of-absence would stop the clock on a faculty member's post-tenure review cycle.
B. Tenured faculty members holding primarily administrative positions will not undergo post-tenure review until they return to the faculty in a position that is primarily a teaching one. The post-tenure review clock will be reset to 0 at that point.
C. A faculty member who is planning to retire during the year of or the year after a post-tenure review would normally occur will be exempt from post-tenure review if the faculty member has formally notified the vice president for academic affairs of his or her plans to retire.
D. Upon agreement of the faculty member and department chair, the post-tenure review may substitute for the faculty member's annual review for the year in which the post-tenure review occurred. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Criteria |
The criteria for a satisfactory post-tenure review will be continued satisfactory activity in the area of Teaching and in one of the following areas: Service, Academic Achievement, or Professional Growth and Development. The nature of these areas and of “satisfactory performance” is described in P&P 803.075 (Faculty Activities). In applying these criteria, it should be recognized that a faculty member's contributions may change over time. Additionally, a faculty member's cumulative contributions in these areas over his or her career, as well as his or her performance during the previous five years, should be considered. 1. Teaching: The area of teaching is defined to include those activities described in P&P 803.075 (Faculty Activities) as well as course, lab and/or curriculum development, and significant contributions to pedagogy. As part of assessing one's contributions in teaching, documentation of teaching effectiveness is required. As part of this documentation, all faculty members will be required to submit results of student evaluations. Appropriate student evaluation instruments are addressed in P&P 803.0701 (Student Evaluation of Faculty). Results of student evaluations for courses that the faculty member taught in each of the previous five years must be included in the post-tenure package. Additional documentation of teaching effectiveness including peer reviews, administrative reviews, alumni evaluations, and student comments may also be submitted. The faculty member may also provide documentation regarding course, lab and/or curriculum development, or significant contributions to pedagogy where these are used to support the post-tenure review. 2. Service: Activities regarding service are presented in P&P 803.075 (Faculty Activities). A faculty member using service activities to support the post-tenure review should provide documentation sufficient to establish the quality and effectiveness of that service. 3. Professional Growth and Development: Activities regarding professional growth and development are presented in P&P 803.075 (Faculty Activities). A faculty member using professional growth and development activities to support the post-tenure review should provide documentation sufficient to establish the quality of those activities. 4. Academic Achievement: Activities regarding academic achievement are presented in P&P 803.075 (Faculty Activities). A faculty member using academic achievement activities to support the post-tenure review should provide documentation sufficient to establish the quality of that academic achievement. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Review Procedure |
A. Post-tenure review will be carried out using the same procedures as promotions.
B. A package for the evaluation will be prepared by the faculty member. The package must be submitted to the departmental peer committee by February 15. The package must contain the following:
1. The faculty member's current resume, including a list of courses taught at Southern Polytechnic;
2. Measures of teaching effectiveness including, but not limited to, results of student evaluations;
3. A summary prepared by the department chair of the faculty member's Faculty Ratings forms for the years under review; and
4. A narrative not to exceed two (2) pages that places the faculty member’s work for the last five years in a broad perspective and outlines their goals for the next five year period. The faculty member may choose to include additional documentation, but this is not mandatory. The additional documentation should not exceed five (5) pages.
C. The departmental peer committee shall review the post-tenure package and submit a letter to the department chair. The department committee shall comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the faculty member as well as recommend a finding of either satisfactory or unsatisfactory. For assistant and associate professors, the committee will also provide guidance on progress toward promotion. The department chair also reviews the package and writes a letter including a recommendation of either satisfactory or unsatisfactory. The department chair will forward the review package, along with his or her report and the report of the departmental peer committee, to the School Committee.
D. Based upon the material presented, the School Committee will make a finding of satisfactory or unsatisfactory.
E. School Committee members may provide comments on the strengths, weaknesses, goals, and accomplishments of the faculty member. The results of the review will be communicated to both the faculty member and the faculty member's department chair via a letter written by the committee. The letter shall include the finding of satisfactory or unsatisfactory, include the vote tally of the committee, and list the comments of individual members of the committee.
In the event of an unsatisfactory finding, the letter must include the list of members' comments for that finding. The faculty member has the right to include a written response to the letter. That response becomes a part of the package. Whether the finding was satisfactory or unsatisfactory, the package and a copy of the letter will be placed in the faculty member's personnel file and also sent to the faculty member's dean.
F. The package will be reviewed by the faculty member’s dean. Recognizing that the primary level of scrutiny of post-tenure cases is at the School Committee level, the Dean will write a letter of comment only in cases of egregious disagreement. Otherwise, the Dean will sign the cover sheet and forward the package to the VPAA. Similarly, the VPAA will write a letter of comment only in cases of egregious disagreement. The VPAA will ensure that the process delineated in this P&P has been followed, and report to the Board of Regents, as required. The complete package will be kept in the Office of the VPAA with a copy kept in the office of the department chair.
G. Whether the finding was satisfactory or unsatisfactory, the department chair must meet together with the faculty member to discuss the package. In the event of an unsatisfactory finding, the department chair and the faculty member must agree upon a development plan for improvement. In the event the faculty member and department chair cannot agree on a development plan, the departmental peer review committee shall serve as mediator. The plan must have the following characteristics:
1. It must have clearly defined tangible goals and outcomes.
2. It must be specific as to the activities expected of the faculty member.
3. A clear time frame of not more than three years is to be stated.
4. There must be a clear and tangible means of monitoring progress over time.
A development plan must be in place by the end of the academic year in which the review occurred.
H. A development plan resulting from an unsatisfactory finding will be forwarded to the faculty member's dean for approval. If the dean does not approve, he or she will return the plan, along with his or her concerns, to the department chair, department peer committee, and faculty member for that group to revise. If that group cannot produce a plan that is acceptable to the dean, a plan will be devised by a campus-wide faculty committee composed of one representative from each school or college, chosen by each school's or college's dean.
The final form of the plan to be followed must be put in writing and signed by the faculty member, department chair, and dean. Copies must be given to the faculty member, department chair, and dean. The faculty member is responsible for substantial completion of the plan. The dean and department chair are jointly responsible for funding the development plan, if University funding is required.
I. The progress of a development plan resulting from an unsatisfactory finding will be monitored and communicated to the faculty member by his or her department chair and by the current department peer review committee at least once per term. Progress on the plan should be a part of the faculty member's yearly reviews.
J. The decision as to whether a development plan has been substantially completed shall rest with the faculty member's department chair and the department peer committee. The dean shall review the findings of the department peer committee and department chair and resolve any differences.
K. In the unlikely event that the faculty member does not substantially complete the development plan, the faculty member, current department peer review committee chair, current School Committee chair, department chair, dean, and vice president for academic affairs will meet to discuss reasons and remedies for non-fulfillment. If after three years the faculty member has not been successful with remedying the identified deficiencies, he or she may be subject to dismissal for cause (regular, independent dismissal processes and policies will apply).
L. The School Committee will identify any outstanding post-tenure review packages and will recommend these for consideration as per Board of Regents Policy 803.07 Section 4.04.03. Based on a review of the package(s) and on the School Committee’s recommendations, the Dean and VPAA will allocate appropriate rewards and communicate such to the department chair and faculty member. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals Procedure |
A faculty member has the right to appeal the decision of the School Committee, the development plan, and the decision on completion of the development plan to his or her dean. The faculty member has the right to appeal a decision of his or her dean to the vice president for academic affairs. The faculty member has the right to appeal a decision of the vice president for academic affairs to the president. The faculty member has the right to appeal a decision of the president to the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia. |
|