Laura Alpert, Art William Ayres, Anthropology John Bonine, Law Suzanne Clark, English David Conley, Education Sarah Douglas, Computer and Information Science Paul Engleking, Chemistry John Gage, English Lynne Kahle, Business Mike Russo, Business (Chair) Norman Savage, Geology Jim Terborg, Business Jim Upshaw, Journalism
From: Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Post-Tenure Review
Date: (draft number 5 -- 11/19/98 )
Re: Faculty Development Review
The University of Oregon Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Post-Tenure Review hereby submits to the Senate for consideration a proposed procedure to replace all previous policies regarding "post-tenure review" at the University.
The University Senate created the Ad Hoc Committee and requested that it conduct a thorough reconsideration of the procedures for post-tenure review. The Senate acted in response to a proposal from the Provost, who perceived a need to take a new look at post-tenure review and to provide more support for excellence, as well as to react to a 1997 accreditation report by the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges calling for more frequent reviews.
The University of Oregon has had a process for the past two decades known as "post-tenure review." This process already calls for more review than at comparable, major research universities that are members of the American Association of Universities. Appendix A provides summaries of policies at a number of AAU and other universities. University of Oregon policies have called for such reviews every five years, a requirement that has been followed by some administrative units (departments, programs, schools, and colleges), but has not been rigorously implemented by some others. While the existing process has had some benefit, the Committee has concluded that a more forward-looking, supportive process will help faculty members better achieve the goals of the University.
The Committee has concluded that, with the University's increasing concern with excellence, and with the increasing quality of its faculty, the time has come to review and to modify the post-tenure process, replacing it with a new process to be known as "Faculty Developmental Review." The new process is intended to help faculty members achieve the goals of excellence in teaching, research, and service throughout their careers.
The new system will provide an interim review every three years and a comprehensive review every six years. This review will be more oriented toward faculty development than the old procedure. The procedures emphasize the importance of the involvement of faculty colleagues in any reviews that are undertaken.
Text of Review Document begins Here
Faculty Development Review University of Oregon
FACULTY GOVERNANCE AND THE RESPONSIBILITY OF EDUCATORS: THE UNIVERSITY OF OREGON CHARTER
The Charter of the University of Oregon, adopted in 1872, places the governance of the University in the hands of its faculty, with the President at its head. According to the Charter, "The Faculty, consisting of the President and professors, shall be intrusted with the immediate government and discipline of the University." This system of governance imposes a solemn collective responsibility on the professors of the University of Oregon that is in addition to their individual responsibility to their students, their profession, and the larger society. The procedures described here are prepared with that responsibility of faculty governance in mind. Commitment to faculty governance requires substantial service obligations that must be recognized. The procedures are designed to help each of us, as an educator, more effectively discharge her or his individual responsibilities toward students, profession, and society.
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF EDUCATORS, ACADEMIC FREEDOM, AND TENURE. INDIVIDUAL PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
Society entrusts individual professors in its institutions of higher education with tasks of immense sensitivity -- the education of its young people; the search for knowledge, wherever that search may lead; and the use of knowledge to help individuals and institutions in society progress and improve. To perform these tasks well requires a lifetime commitment to the profession of the scholar.
ACADEMIC FREEDOM.
To persuade the best scholars to devote their lives to this profession, the University guarantees a healthy measure of freedom in their professional lives. The protection of that freedom -- which is called academic freedom -- is both the precondition to excellence in the professoriate and the precondition to the education of continuing generations of free citizens, in a free society. Academic freedom is guaranteed not primarily to benefit the professors, therefore, but to ensure benefits to society as a whole.
ACADEMIC TENURE.
The primary method by which academic freedom is guaranteed is through a conditional grant of lifetime tenure. This grant of tenure is offered only to those professors who make it through a rigorous, probationary period. During that period, they bear the burden of proving their potential for lifelong excellence in teaching, research, and service. Those who sustain this burden of proof are then offered, in return, the bargain that the University will not later dismiss them without itself bearing a burden of proof that they are failing to perform as expected. Tenured professors are not guaranteed their jobs. They are, however, guaranteed that they will not be dismissed without academic due process. This guarantee is central to academic freedom and the societal benefits that it generates.
EVALUATION.
In addition to the rigorous evaluation undergone by professors who obtain tenure, professors are continually evaluated by their students, by their local peers, and by a wide range of peers in their profession on a national or international basis after they have obtained tenure. Few professions are practiced as "publicly" as the profession of a university professor. Evaluation and review is therefore a continuing feature of the life of every professor. A list of such processes of evaluation and review is provided in Appendix B.
COLLECTIVE PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR FACULTY DEVELOPMENT.
In addition to their individual responsibilities, the faculty members in each administrative unit (department, program, school, or college) of the University of Oregon have a collective responsibility to help individual colleagues achieve excellence. The purpose of this procedure is to promote a high level of dialogue between individual faculty members, their colleagues, and heads of administrative units, so that each faculty member can draw upon the advice and resources of others in her or his pursuit of professional excellence.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENTAL REVIEW
A. PROCEDURES OF INDIVIDUAL ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS
Procedures for developmental reviews will be developed by each administrative unit at the University of Oregon. In order to ensure that such procedures are created in each administrative unit, a memorandum will be submitted by each administrative unit to the Provost's Office and the President of the University Senate no later than 1 May 1999, stating that the faculty members have created such procedures.
Each administrative unit will distribute a copy of its procedures to each member of the faculty at the beginning of each academic year.
Two levels of regular, substantive review are required -- a major review every six years and interim reviews at the three-year point after a major, six-year review (or more often). If the unit's procedures exceed the requirement for third-year, interim reviews because a faculty peer committee conducts more frequent reviews (such as regular performance reviews for salary purposes, merit reviews, or the like), then no additional third-year review is required. Such more-frequent reviews must meet the standards set forth below, however.
B. FACULTY PEER COMMITTEES
A committee with a minimum of two tenured faculty will be responsible for
both third-year, interim reviews and sixth-year reviews. The process for formation of the committee will be decided by the faculty of an administrative unit. Options that may be considered include
(a) the use of existing personnel committees of the unit,Administrators and department heads under this policy are to engage in faculty developmental review in cooperation with the faculty peer committees.
(b) election of committee members by the unit as a whole,
(c) appointment of committee members by the unit's chair on a rotating basis so as to cover all faculty members, or
(d) another basis that ensures both fairness and excellence in the process.
The peer committee review process is intended to be cooperative and beneficial, not punitive. This process of developmental review is not a disciplinary, sanctioning, or termination process. Separate regulations govern such purposes, and are summarized in Appendix C.
C. THE THIRD-YEAR DEVELOPMENTAL REVIEW
Reviews will be jointly conducted at least every three years by each individual faculty member and by a committee of her or his colleagues from the administrative unit, with the participation of the administrative head of the unit.
2. REVIEW BY PEERS: The self-study review will be submitted to the faculty peer committee, which will review the document.
3. FILING OR CONSULTATION: The committee will decide either to forward the self-study to the Department Head or Dean with a recommendation to file the documents in the faculty member's personnel file, or to initiate a process of consultation with the faculty member, if the committee, Dean or department head, or individual faculty member deems it to be appropriate.
4. PURPOSE OF ANY CONSULTATION: If a consultation ensues, its purpose is to provide constructive feedback to the faculty member regarding her or his review, to address resource issues, or to negotiate changes in plans or priorities. The process is to be cooperative and beneficial, rather than disciplinary.
A thorough faculty developmental review will be conducted with each faculty member every six years.
2. INITIAL MEETING: No later than 15 October, the peer committee and the faculty member undergoing a developmental review shall meet and design a mutually agreeable plan and schedule for the developmental review. The purpose of this initial meeting is to agree upon a process for assessing the professor's teaching, research, and service.
3. SELF-STUDY: Each faculty member will review his or her teaching, research, and service contributions over the last six years, in a written evaluative document, submitted to his or her faculty peer committee at an agreed-upon time during the fall term. The self-study will consist of an extensive and self-reflective analysis of the course of the professor's career, focusing specifically on the previous six years. The faculty member will comment upon:
* achievement of the original or altered goals, and areas where more work is planned;
* goals for professional development in the areas of research, teaching, and service at all levels for the next six-year period and for her or his career;
* resource-related problems or other matters which appear to be limiting factors in reaching such goals.
4. CLASSROOM VISITS: Each administrative unit will ensure that it uses some effective method of peer observation of teaching, including classroom visits, in addition to its processes for peer review of research. Peer classroom visits will ensure that a faculty member is observed in a variety of settings, a condition that may be satisfied by a program of regular visits in various years.
5. SECOND MEETING WITH COMMITTEE: The peer committee and the faculty member shall meet again after peer observation of teaching and review of research and service have taken place, in order to discuss their impressions and conclusions. The emphasis shall be on a collegial discussion about accomplishments, hopes, plans, and resources needed. The committee and professor shall endeavor to reach agreement on a written summary of these matters, in a process that shall be concluded by Spring Break.
6. FACULTY RESOURCE SUPPORT: In order to support the goals set out in a faculty member's developmental review, the Senate recommends that the Provost allocate substantial, recurring funds to administrative units for this purpose. Such funds are not to come from monies earmarked for salary or administrative support accounts (ASAs), nor are they to be used to increase the faculty member's salary or ASA. Rather, their purpose is to assist the faculty member in achieving professional goals set out in his or her six-year plan. So, for example, resources could be made available to support the preparation of new classes, the acquisition of technological capabilities, the pursuit of new research initiatives, or a number of other goals that might be outlined in the faculty member's developmental review.
7. MEDIATION: If the faculty member and peer committee cannot come to agreement, either the committee or the faculty member may ask for the appointment of a mediator. If differences are minor, and neither party wishes to push for resolution, however, it is acceptable simply to "agree to disagree." If mediation is called for, all parties shall endeavor to develop a plan that is acceptable to all.
Department chairs will determine the years in which faculty will undergo this review in accordance with these guidelines:
* for those without reviews in the last six years, on a randomly-assigned basis
* in any year where the faculty member is reviewed for promotion to full professor, promotion review will substitute for this review.
Post-Tenure Review at Other Universities The following descriptions are based on several on-line sources. In the case of Oregon State University, University of Washington, and the University of Colorado, the text represents a synopsis written by committee members. In the other cases, the text was taken from documents placed on line by an Oregon State University Faculty Senate Task Force on Post-Tenure Review.
Oregon State University. In Spring, 1998, a Faculty Senate Task Force examined post-tenure review at OSU. The current system Periodic Review of Faculty, or PROF, system calls for developmental review of tenured faculty at least once every three years, or upon the request of the faculty member. The Task Force recommended that a 5 year cycle would be more appropriate. In practice, merit review appears to be the main tool for post-tenure review at OSU. Evaluation of teaching, research, and service are to be included, with significant latitude given to units in meeting this mandate. However, there is very little peer involvement in the process. Further, the OSU Task Force found that the institution need examine cases of consistently underperforming faculty members more closely.
Portland State University. Because the PSU faculty are covered by a collective bargaining agreement, the post-tenure review procedures are more strictly specified that at other institutions that do not have a faculty union. At PSU, the reviews are conducted by a committee of three faculty selected by appropriate procedures in the academic unit. Reviews are conducted at least every five years. The faculty member submits a c.v. and narrative review of past accomplishments and future plans, and then meets with the review committee for an informal and confidential discussion. Prior to the meeting the faculty member may notify the committee of the need for additional institutional support for continued professional growth, in which case the committee and the individual determine a formal professional development plan.
University of Washington. Currently, the University depends primarily on irregular merit reviews for post-tenure evaluation. A proposal for a specific developmentally-oriented post-tenure review is now being discussed. It calls for senior faculty to meet with departmental chairs once each two years to negotiate teaching, research, and service duties. In this meeting, an assessment of the faculty member's success in meeting previous goals would also take place, and this assessment would be used in salary determinations. In the case that in two consecutive periods a zero merit raise is recommended or at the option of the faculty member, an ad hoc committee is formed to undertake a more detailed review of the faculty member's performance. The committee can a) provide for measures to improve performance, b) recommend changes in the faculty member's responsibilities to better align them with the unit's needs, or c) conclude that negative assessments were unwarranted. The proposed policy also calls for expanded assessments of teaching effectiveness to place greater emphasis on learning outcomes.
Washington State University. No post-tenure review.
University of Colorado. The purpose of post-tenure review is to "facilitate continued faculty development" and to "ensure professional accountability by a regular, comprehensive evaluation." The review consists of a departmental peer assessment of teaching, research, and service. Developmental in nature, it is conducted every five years, provided that a faculty member meets expectations as determined by annual merit evaluations. If the faculty member consistently performs below expectations, a more extensive review is conducted, and a developmental plan is cooperatively developed to improve that faculty member's performance. Sanctions can be imposed if the performance faculty member continues to fall below expectations
University of Kentucky. The rationale and purpose of the evaluation process are clearly and eloquently described. Each department is expected to develop performance expectations for its faculty. After these performance expectations are reviewed by the Dean to assure conformity with the mission of the College, they are used as the basis for evaluating faculty performance. Reviews are conducted biennially, alternating with years in which regular merit reviews are conducted. Faculty may request a professional review or may be selected for a review if their merit reviews are below a pre-determined level. The review is conducted by an ad hoc three- member faculty panel appointed by the Dean in consultation with the Department Chair and the faculty member. The faculty member may avoid the review by changing the position description to reduce the deficient area to no more than 25% of the professional duties. If the review reveals chronic and substantial deficiencies, a professional development plan is created to address the deficiencies. Progress in satisfying the plan is reviewed annually for three years.
University of Texas - Austin. The review is conducted every five years by a faculty committee at the departmental level. Upon request, the faculty member is provided with an opportunity to meet with the review committee. The findings of the review committee are communicated in writing to the faculty member and the Dean by the Department Chair. If the result of the review is unsatisfactory, the Dean may appoint a peer committee to conduct a more intensive review, or the faculty member may request a more intensive review. If the review identifies areas in which additional support would benefit the faculty member's performance, the evaluation may be used to provide the motivation for such support. If the evaluation reveals unsatisfactory performance, review for termination for cause may be considered. The procedure lacks specificity on the source of the support for improvement of performance and on the monitoring procedure to evaluate improvement.
Kansas State University. Faculty in each department develop a set of minimum acceptable performance criteria. Faculty whose performance falls below these criteria are notified in writing by the unit head, who suggests a course of action for improvement. In subsequent annual evaluations, the faculty member reports on specific evidence of improvement and progress toward fulfilling the improvement plan. As an alternative, the unit head and the faculty member may mutually agree to a reassignment of duties to eliminate the area of deficient performance from the faculty member's responsibility. If a faculty member fails to meet the minimum standards in two successive years, or in three years out of any five-year period, then dismissal for cause will be considered.
Arizona State University. Annual reviews of faculty are conducted by the unit head and/or a peer committee based on performance during the preceding three years. The review is conducted at the departmental level, but the Dean and a committee of two faculty from other units in the college review the performance ratings of 20% of the faculty each year as a monitor of the effectiveness of the process. A more intensive review may be requested by the faculty member or is mandatory if the annual performance evaluation is unsatisfactory. Deficient performance in one area triggers a faculty development plan to be completed in one year. Deficient performance in several areas or failure to complete the development plan results in a performance improvement plan, under which deficient teaching must be remedied in one year and deficient research in no more than three years. If the faculty member refuses to enter the performance improvement process, or if the goals of the performance improvement plan are not satisfied within the allotted time, the unit head may initiate dismissal for cause.
University of Illinois. Faculty members are reviewed every seven years. The reviews are based on annual reports submitted by the faculty member and are conducted by faculty committees selected within each academic unit. Faculty under review may submit additional documentation and will be given the opportunity to meet with the review committee. The review committee submits a written report to the unit head, which draws attention to insufficiently recognized merit, to changes in interests or activities that may call for adjustments in duties, or to other areas of concern. The unit head communicates the substance of the report to the faculty member. If the evaluation is unsatisfactory, the unit head meets with the faculty member to determine whether additional institutional support is necessary to remedy the deficiencies. A written plan, signed by both parties, is developed with explicit expectations and timely benchmarks. The plan is monitored as a part of future annual and periodic reviews. If a plan cannot be agreed upon, or if the agreed upon plan has been ineffective, the unit head or other appropriate administrators will consider more severe remedies, including mediation, reassignment of duties, or the initiation of sanction proceedings.
Appendix B:
Examples of Current Policy and Practices for Review of Faculty (note - this is a different format from the attached file)
Contract Review - Assistant Prof, Pre Tenure End of year 2 in first 3 year contract (Dept. Comm. & Dept. Head, Dean) End of year 5 in second 3 year contract (Dept. Comm. & Dept. Head, Dean) If advanced, tenure review in year 6 (Dept. Comm. & Dept. Head, Dean, Dean's Comm., University FPC, Provost)
Contract Review - Associate and Full Prof., Post-Tenure With indefinite tenure, no further contract review
Promotion - Assistant Prof, Pre Tenure Year 6 concurrent with tenure review (Dept. Comm. & Dept. Head, Dean, Dean's Comm., University FPC, Provost)
Promotion - Associate Prof,, Post-Tenure On average in year 6 as Associate Prof. (Dept. Comm. & Dept. Head, Dean, Dean's Comm., University FPC, Provost)
Promotion - Full Prof,, Post-Tenure not applicable
Merit Salary - Assistant, Associate, and Full Prof. Upon appropriation of new salary funds by legislature
Developmental - Assistant Prof, Pre Tenure At 6 months in year 1, thereafter annual until year 6 (Dept. Head)
Developmental - Associate Prof,, Post-Tenure Every 5 years (Dept. Comm, Dept. Head, Dean)
Developmental - Full Prof,, Post-Tenure Every 5 years (Dept. Comm, Dept. Head, Dean)
Disciplinary (Failure to Perform) - Assistant, Associate, and Full Prof. Can be initiated at any time by Dept. Head, Dean, Provost (per OAR ) Can be initiated at any time by Dept. Head, Dean, Provost (per OAR ) Can be initiated at any time by Dept. Head, Dean, Provost (per OAR )
Appendix C:
Summary of Oregon Administrative Rules (OARs) Regarding Sanctions against Tenured Faculty
The following is a brief summary of OAR sections 580-21-0310 through 580-021-0470 and 580-022-0045 regarding potential sanctions, including termination, that can be applied to tenured faculty. Much of this is also described in the 1996 Faculty Handbook
Summary and Observations:
4. Only the President of the University may determine and initiate procedures for a sanction for cause more severe than an oral or written warning or reprimand.