POST-TENURE REVIEW POLICY

PURPOSES
POST-TENURE REVIEW PROCESS
IMPLEMENTATION

PURPOSES

There has been a marked growth in interest in the subject of post-tenure review among institutions of higher education in the United States. There are many factors serving as an impetus to implementing post-tenure review policies at colleges and universities. In Kentucky, in addition to institutional self-study, the impetus has come, in part, from the state legislature. In 1998, Senate Bill 11 was passed by the Kentucky General Assembly calling on all state universities to develop post-tenure review policies. The Council on Postsecondary Education was charged with monitoring the efforts of universities to implement such policies.

The post-tenure review policy described herein is the product of extensive study by a special faculty committee, commentary by the faculty at large and the Faculty Senate, suggestions by the Faculty Regent, and review by the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs and President. Among other things, the policy is intended to: (1) respect important academic values and practices, specifically including academic freedom and tenure; (2) recognize good performance and encourage professional development; and (3) allow intervention in those cases in which there is a demonstrated need for improvement. Western Kentucky University recognizes that the purposes of post-tenure review are achieved through a continuing review process designed:
--to commend and recognize superior performance through merit pay and university awards;
--to encourage and facilitate improvement wherever necessary;
--to maximize opportunities for continuing professional development;
--to advance attainment of institutional goals.

The post-tenure review process should acknowledge good work, point out areas for improvement, identify most productive uses of faculty members' talents and expertise, and identify opportunities to energize all faculty members to reach new levels of achievement.

POST-TENURE REVIEW PROCESS

The post-tenure review process at Western Kentucky University will incorporate and build upon the existing system of annual performance reviews. Key elements of the review process will include annual activity reports submitted by each faculty member, results of student (SITE) evaluations of faculty, and department head evaluations of each faculty member. These elements will encompass:
--annual activity reports that will be consistent in format and will include activities and endeavors in the categories of teaching,
research/creative activity, service, and contributions to the university mission, as well as the individual faculty member's
long-range goals in each of the above categories;
--results of student (SITE) evaluations for each course taught by the faculty member during the preceding year;
--department head annual evaluations that will explicitly address the post-tenure review goals of commending and recognizing
superior performance, encouraging and facilitating improvement wherever necessary, maximizing opportunities for continuing
professional development, and advancing attainment of institutional goals.

The results of the annual post-tenure review process will be provided to the college dean and the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs and will be incorporated into recommendations for merit salary increases and university recognitions and awards. If areas needing improvement are identified, the department head will work with the faculty member in developing a plan for improvement and will monitor progress during the following year.

Any dispute involving an individual faculty member's evaluation under the post-tenure review process will be resolved, if possible, at these levels (in order): department head; college dean; Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs. Any unresolved disputes may be submitted to the Faculty Grievance Committee through the President.

Insofar as possible, the post-tenure review process will follow a similar structure and format throughout the university. Only minor department-specific adjustments may be made to this policy and those may be made only by majority vote of the tenured and tenure-track faculty of the particular department and approved by the college dean and the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs.

Two years after implementation of this policy, the University Senate will conduct a study of the policy to determine if it has accomplished its stated purposes. The Senate will report its findings to the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs.

IMPLEMENTATION

The post-tenure review policy will go into effect beginning with the 2000-2001 academic year. All tenured faculty members are subject to this review.

Each academic department will review its current post-tenure review evaluation criteria to ensure consistency with the adopted post-tenure review policy. Changes in existing departmental criteria will be adopted through a majority vote of all tenured and tenure-track faculty members in the department and will be approved by the college dean and the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs. For the initial year of implementation, this process should be completed at the department level and the college dean's level by October 5, 2000, and at the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs level by October 30, 2000.

It is recommended that departments refer to existing criteria for faculty evaluation described in the Faculty Handbook (15th edition, pages 10-17, 34, and 38-41). Materials required for the review will include the individual faculty member's annual activity reports (which will follow a consistent university format), student (SITE) evaluations, department head evaluations, and the faculty member's long-range goals in each of the four areas of responsibility.

Post-tenure review will be built upon the existing process of annual performance reviews of faculty. Reviews during the initial year will be scheduled for completion by February 15, 2001 so that the results can be incorporated into the University's system of annual merit salary increases and other recognitions of performance. A similar schedule will be followed in subsequent years.

When areas of needed improvement have been identified through these reviews, the department head will work with the individual faculty member to develop a professional development plan to address those needs. The plan should be based on a clear timetable and should incorporate explicit steps to be taken by the faculty member to achieve the necessary improvement.