• Home
  • Post-tenure Review Criteria and Procedures, Department of English

Post-tenure Review Criteria and Procedures, Department of English

Policy
Procedure
Purpose: 

To articulate the criteria and procedures for post-tenure review in the Department of English.

Applies to: 

Tenured faculty in the Department of English

Campus: 
Lawrence
Policy Statement: 

           General Principles: In accordance with Board of Regents requirements (II.C.8), Article 7 Section 4 of the Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations, and the University Policy on Post-tenure Review, the Department of English, hereafter referred to as the English Department, 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:

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. 

            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 English Department 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.

            Criteria for Meeting Expectations in Teaching/Advising:

           The record must demonstrate continued effectiveness and growth as a teacher, as reflected in such factors as mastery of the subject matter, strong classroom teaching skills, an ongoing commitment to student learning, and active involvement in providing advice and support for students outside the classroom. The candidate’s teaching should reflect knowledge of his/her field, and show that s/he is effective in encouraging students' interest, helping them to think critically and to apply their knowledge, pointing them toward the broader implications of their study, and generally encouraging their development as perceptive readers and articulate writers. The record must also give indication of responsible fulfillment of all duties associated with teaching, including prompt and regular holding of class sessions and office hours, timely and sufficient grading and comments on assignments, acceptable and fair expectations and criteria for student work (as judged by disciplinary standards), adequate class preparation and effective use of class time, and reflection about pedagogy. Faculty members are also expected to engage in advising students.

            Additionally, for those at the rank of full professor or above, the record must reflect mastery of the subject matter as well as continued success in the classroom.

            Criteria for Meeting Expectations in Research and Creative Activity:

Tenure is granted to faculty members with the expectation that they will continue to be active scholars. The record must demonstrate an established scholarly career, as reflected in such factors as a substantial and ongoing pattern of publication or creative activity, the candidate’s national or international reputation, and other evidence of an active and productive scholarly career.

  • “Scholarship” in the Department of English includes the following activities, which have varying degrees of importance:
  • Publication of a book (monograph, edited text, research-based textbook, edited collections, collections of stories, essays, and poems, and full-length plays);
  • Publication of articles in refereed journals or invited collections;
  • Publication of plays, short stories, poems, creative essays, or other substantial creative work (a production of a play is the equivalent of publication);
  • Presentations at scholarly conferences, creative readings, and invited presentations, including keynote speeches or invitations to present, leading toward publication;
  • Published reviews of published books, short articles or newspaper stories, encyclopedia entries, and scholarly blogs or other non-peer-reviewed online publications; and
  • Theatrical direction, production, and performance can constitute creative activity

            Criteria for Meeting Expectations in Service:

The record should indicate significant participation in activities necessary to the successful functioning of the department, College, and/or University, including (at a minimum) significant service on two committees per year and participation at departmental meetings. In addition, a record of substantial contributions to the larger university community, the profession, or the discipline at the local, regional, national, or international level (e.g. memberships on committees or task forces, memberships on editorial or advisory boards, student recruitment, administration, reviewing grant applications, judging academic awards competitions, offices in professional organizations, conducting ad hoc workshops, fund raising, organizing conferences, lectures, or readings, etc.) is expected. A record demonstrating leadership at the department, College, University, or professional level indicates meritorious service beyond minimum expectations.

            Relation to the Annual Evaluation.

The post-tenure review will be conducted by the Faculty Evaluation Committee (excluding the department chair) pursuant to the faculty evaluation policy. Therefore, post-tenure review and annual evaluation are combined into a single process.

         The committee report will be considered as part of the annual evaluation process and the chair 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. The faculty member will provide both units with copies of the Faculty Member’s Statement section of the Post-Tenure Review File (reflecting the representative effort in each unit) and a current curriculum vitae. The review goes forward with each unit preparing a separate committee evaluation summary and considerations by each chair and/or director to the dean. Each unit will submit their review materials directly to the College Dean’s Office. In the case of a jointly appointed faculty and unclassified academic staff member outside of the College, the primary unit is responsible for the administrative protocols of engaging the secondary unit in the solicitation and collection of feedback relative to the evaluation of performance expectations in the secondary unit.

            Review Committee: “The post-tenure review is conducted by 3 of the 4 members of the Faculty Evaluation Committee, which shall be selected as provided in the Faculty Evaluation Plan. Specifically, the Post-tenure Review Committee shall consist of three members of the current Faculty Evaluation Committee, not including the department chair. At least one member of the Faculty Evaluation Committee must hold the rank of full professor (excluding the department chair) and a full professor must chair the Post-tenure Review Committee. No assistant professor may serve on either the Faculty Evaluation Committee or the Post-tenure Review Committee. As the chair of the Faculty Evaluation Committee, the department Chair may sit in and deliberate but may not vote on post-tenure review determinations.

            No person may serve on the committee if his or her spouse or partner is scheduled for review, or if he or she is engaged in research collaboration with the faculty member under 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 department chair 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 chair 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 department, 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 chair.

            Consideration by the Chair/Director: The committee’s report (along with any faculty response) will be provided to the chair. Using the Chair/Director Evaluation Summary, if the chair 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 chair may ask the committee to provide additional information or reconsider the review. If the chair disagrees with a positive evaluation by the committee, the faculty member may submit a written response. The chair 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 chair’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 chair. 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 chair 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 English Department’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: 

Department of English
University of Kansas
1445 Jayhawk Blvd., Room 3001
Lawrence, KS 66045
english@ku.edu

Department Chairperson
785-864-4520

Approved by: 
The Senior Staff in the Department of English
Approved on: 
Friday, May 23, 2014
Effective on: 
Friday, May 23, 2014
Review Cycle: 
Annual (As Needed)
Keywords: 
Post-tenure review, seven-year review, faculty evaluation, PTR, performance, ENGL
Review, Approval & Change History: 

10/12/2015: Per the Interim Dean of the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences, the following was added to the template under Committee 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.   Added:  Faculty members are also expected to engage in advising students, to Teaching Criteria. Added 05/23/14 as date the college reviewed and accepted this policy.

08/28/2015: Added new template language to “Period for Review.”

08/17/2015: Updated links to CLAS PtR Forms

04/24/2015: Updated CLAS PtR forms and added links to each form within the policy statement.

04/02/2015: Fixed broken link to Board of Regents Policy Manual.

02/17/2015: Updated joint appointment section to include new boilerplate language.

12/18/2014: Updated to provide the current link to the Board of Regents Policy Manual.

11/21/2014: Updated to provide the current link to the Board of Regents Policy Manual.

05/23/2014: Reviewed and accepted by the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences Dean’s Office

05/23/2014: Approved by vote of the Senior Staff in the Department of English.

Personnel: Faculty/Academic Staff Categories: 
Performance
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