• Home
  • Post-tenure Review Criteria and Procedures, Child Language Doctoral Program

Post-tenure Review Criteria and Procedures, Child Language Doctoral Program

Procedure
Purpose: 

To articulate the criteria and procedures for post-tenure review for the Child Language Doctoral Program.

Applies to: 

Tenured faculty in the Child Language Doctoral Program

Campus: 
Lawrence
Policy Statement: 

General Principles:  In accordance with Board of Regents requirements, Article 7, section 4 of the Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations, and the University Policy on Post-tenure Review, the Child Language Doctoral Program, hereafter referred to as the CLDP, has adopted these expectations and procedures for conducting post-tenure review.  Post-tenure review is a process for periodic peer evaluation of faculty performance that provides an opportunity for a long-term assessment of a faculty member’s accomplishments and future directions in the areas of teaching/advising, scholarship, and service.

            Post-tenure review must be conducted in a manner that respects the rights of faculty members involved, including academic freedom, tenure, and due process.  In addition, all those involved in the evaluation process must recognize that it is a confidential personnel matter and take appropriate steps to protect confidentiality. 

            Period for Review:  Post-tenure review is conducted on a seven-year cycle and covers the seven-year period leading up to the review, including the six prior annual evaluation letters and activities since the last annual evaluation. The cycle is restarted if a faculty member is evaluated for promotion or is awarded a distinguished professorship.  Some years may be excluded from the period in accordance with the University policy, and the review may be postponed if the faculty member is on leave during the year of review.  The Dean of the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences will notify faculty members scheduled for post-tenure review no later than March 15th in the spring semester preceeding the academic year of review. 

            Unit Expectations:  All tenured faculty members must meet academic responsibilities in the areas of teaching/advising, scholarship, and service.  Unless otherwise specified by the job description or differential allocation of effort, the ordinary allocation of effort is 40% teaching/advising, 40% scholarship, and 20% service. 

            The CLDP has defined its standards and expectations for teaching/advising, scholarship, and service in its annual evaluation procedures.  The expectations for post-tenure review are consistent with these standards, with overall productivity commensurate to the seven-year period under review.  The following specific criteria shall apply for purposes of post-tenure review.

The teaching/advising expectations for post-tenure review are the same as those articulated in the CLDP Faculty Evaluation Plan for annual faculty reviews, except that the expectations are commensurate with the seven-year post-tenure review period.

            Relation to the Annual Evaluation. The post-tenure review process will provide the basis for its committee to conduct the annual evaluation in the year appropriate for a given member of the faculty.

The committee report will be considered as part of the annual evaluation process and the director will discuss the review with the faculty member in conjunction with that process.  This discussion should concentrate on the future professional development of the faculty member with an aim toward enhancing meritorious work and improving less satisfactory performance, including adoption of a performance improvement plan, if necessary. Any action on the review that is within the scope of the Faculty Evaluation Policy must be taken under that policy.

                       Joint Appointments.  Faculty members will be reviewed once every seven years following the receipt of tenure with the review occurring in the unit(s) that conducts their annual evaluation. Post-tenure review covers the seven-year period leading up to the review, including the six prior annual evaluation letters and activities since the last annual evaluation. The cycle is restarted if a faculty member is evaluated for promotion or is awarded a distinguished professorship.  The time period when a faculty member is on medical or familial leave or that would otherwise be excluded when computing time in rank does not count toward this period. In addition, time serving as department chair, program director, dean or associate dean, or other administrative position subject to administrative review is excluded. The review may be postponed if it falls in a year when the faculty member is on leave. Faculty members on phased retirement or whose retirement date has been approved by the university will be exempt from review under this policy. The dean of the College will notify faculty members scheduled for post-tenure review no later than March 15th in the spring semester preceding the academic year of review. 

            Review Committee: Post-tenure review is conducted by the Post-tenure Review Committee, which consist of tenured faculty members with a minimum of three tenured faculty members selected in accordance with the unit’s by-laws, for composition of the Promotion and Tenure Committee (see P&T document, “Promotion and Tenure Committee”). 

           No person may serve on the committee if his or her spouse or partner is scheduled for review. If the chair/director is the spouse or partner of the faculty member under review, the “Chair or Director Evaluation Summary” shall be conducted by the Divisional Associate Dean.  A committee member who believes that there may be a conflict of interest should withdraw from the committee. If a faculty member who is undergoing review believes that there is a conflict of interest, he or she may object to the inclusion of a member.  If the member declines to withdraw, the remaining committee members shall consider the basis for the alleged conflict and decide the matter.  If a committee member withdraws or is removed based on a conflict of interest, the director will name a replacement.         

            Preparation of the File: Review will be conducted on the basis of a file that summarizes a faculty member’s teaching/advising, scholarship, and service.  In contrast to evaluation for promotion and tenure, copies of publications and original student evaluations are not required.  Also, outside reviews of scholarship should not be submitted.

            Using the Faculty Member Statement, the faculty member under review shall provide a brief narrative statement of his or her accomplishments in teaching/advising, scholarship, and service during the review period as they relate to his or her long-term career path and goals.  In addition, the faculty member shall submit a current curriculum vitae and a list of additional activities not covered on the curriculum vitae.  The director will furnish copies of the faculty member’s annual evaluation letters for the six years during the review period. 

                     Evaluation and Report:  The committee will review the file and evaluate the faculty member’s overall performance and his or her contributions in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service.  Applying the expectations defined above, the committee will determine whether the faculty member’s performance in each area, as well as whether his or her overall performance meets expectations, exceeds expectations, or fails to meet expectations.  In making its evaluations, the committee must bear in mind that (1) faculty members have differing responsibilities and make different kinds of contributions to the mission of the CLDP, the College, and the University; (2) a faculty member’s activities vary over time according to his or her strengths, interests, and career path; and (3) innovative work may take time to reach fruition and may sometimes fail.

                     Using the Unit Committee Report, the committee will prepare a written report summarizing its evaluation.  The report should provide a narrative description of the faculty member’s activities, an explanation of the committee’s ratings, and recommendations or suggestions for acknowledgement of contributions and future development of the faculty member.  The committee will provide a copy of the report to the faculty member, who may submit a written response for inclusion in the post-tenure review file before it is forwarded to the director.         

            Consideration by the Chair/Director: The committee’s report (along with any faculty response) will be provided to the director. Using the Chair/Director Evaluation Summary, if the director agrees with the report, he or she will indicate that agreement in writing to the faculty member and place a copy in the post-tenure review file. If the chair or director disagrees with the committee’s evaluation, he or she shall explain the reasons for any disagreement in writing, with a copy to the faculty member and the committee.  The director may ask the committee to provide additional information or reconsider the review. If the director disagrees with a positive evaluation by the committee, the faculty member may submit a written response.  The director will forward the file to the dean of the College.  Post-tenure review files are due in the College Dean’s Office by no later than noon, on the second Friday of March. 

            Consideration by the Dean: The faculty member’s post-tenure review file, including the unit committee’s report (along with any faculty response) and the director’s agreement or disagreement, is forwarded to the dean.  Post-tenure review files are due in the College Dean’s Office by no later than noon, on the second Friday in March.  The dean will consider the report and using the Dean’s Evaluation Summary express his or her agreement or disagreement in the same manner as the director. Following the completion of review by the dean, if the dean agrees with the report, he or she will indicate that agreement in writing to the faculty member and place a copy in the file. If dean disagrees with the committee’s evaluation, he or she shall explain the reasons for any disagreement in writing, with a copy to the faculty member and the unit committee. The dean may ask the committee to provide additional information or reconsider the review. If the dean disagrees with a positive evaluation by the unit committee, the faculty member may submit a written response.  The dean will forward a summary of post-tenure review outcomes and copies of the post-tenure review files to the Provost, to ultimately be placed in the faculty member’s personnel file.

            Appeals: Following the completion of the review by the dean, if a disagreement between the committee and the director or dean cannot be resolved or if the faculty member wishes to appeal an evaluation of “fails to meet expectations” in the overall evaluation or any category of responsibility, the matter will be handled as an appeal under the CLDP’s annual Faculty Evaluation Policy.

            Report to the Provost: The dean will provide a summary of the results in the College and copies of the post-tenure review file to the Provost.  The post-tenure review file will be placed in the faculty member’s personnel file.

Contact: 

The University of Kansas

Child Language Doctoral Program

1000 Sunnyside Avenue, 3031 Dole

Lawrence, KS 66045

785-864-4570

childlang@ku.edu

Approved by: 
The Dean of the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences
Approved on: 
Wednesday, November 2, 2016
Effective on: 
Wednesday, November 2, 2016
Review Cycle: 
Annual (As Needed)
Keywords: 
Faculty Evaluation, Seven-year review, post-tenure, CLDP, CLP, Annual Evaluation
Review, Approval & Change History: 

11/02/2016: Approved by the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences

11/02/2016: Approved by the Faculty of the Child Language Doctoral Program

School/College Policy Categories: 
Additional Policies

Can't Find What You're Looking For?
Policy Library Search
KU Today
One of 34 U.S. public institutions in the prestigious Association of American Universities
Nearly $290 million in financial aid annually
44 nationally ranked graduate programs.
—U.S. News & World Report
Top 50 nationwide for size of library collection.
—ALA
23rd nationwide for service to veterans —"Best for Vets," Military Times