School of Music Post-tenure Review

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 School of Music, hereafter referred to as the SoM, 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, 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 SoM will notify faculty members scheduled for post-tenure review no later than March 15 in the spring semester preceding the academic year of review. 

 

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

 

The SoM has defined its standards and expectations for teaching, 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:

 

 

Evidence to be considered in the evaluation of teaching shall include, but not be limited to two sources as required by the University. The first source will be student evaluations using University and School forms and will be administered every term by each faculty member. The second source will be the faculty member’s personal narrative on their teaching, which will be prepared for each annual report and for the post-tenure review file.

 

Evidence must include:

Other evidence may include:

 

Evidence to be considered in the evaluation of research activity will be examined according to quantity and especially quality of productivity. Such evidence may include:

 

For studio faculty:

 

 

For conducting faculty:

 

 

For composers:

 

 

For musicologists, music theorists, and music education and music therapy faculty:

 

 

It is understood that a faculty member in any particular area is not limited only to the research activities listed in that area. It is recognized that many faculty members perform, write, edit, compose, publish, consult, record, and participate in a wide variety of professional activities. Such breadth of activity is encouraged. However, each faculty member’s primary efforts should be directed towards those activities in the area of his or her appointment.

 

 

Service is an essential aspect of faculty evaluation. Because of the visibility the School of Music seeks to maintain in the state, region, and nation, the service component is significant.

 

A satisfactory and nurturing environment for teachers and students within the School of Music requires the development and maintenance of studios, ensembles and classrooms with sufficient quality and quantity to support the School’s performance and academic programs. It is the responsibility of the faculty member to attract and retain qualified music majors. Evidence of developing and/or supporting recruitment and retention programs may include:

 

 

Other evidence to be considered in the evaluation of service may include:

 

 

Review Committee:  Post-tenure review is conducted by the Promotion and Tenure Committee. No person may serve on the committee if his or her spouse or partner is scheduled for review. 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 Dean 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, 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.

 

The faculty member under review should provide a brief narrative statement of his or her accomplishments in teaching, 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 should submit a current curriculum vitae and a list of additional activities not covered on the curriculum vitae.  The Dean will furnish copies of the faculty member’s annual evaluation letters for the years during the review period, if available. 

 

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 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 SoM 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.

 

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 dean.

 

Consideration by the Dean: The committee’s report (along with any faculty response) will be provided to 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 the 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 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 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 be placed in the faculty members’ personnel files.

 

Relation to Annual Evaluations: The committee report will be considered as part of the annual evaluation process and the dean 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.

 

Appeals:  If a disagreement between the committee and the dean cannot be resolved or if the faculty member wishes to appeal an evaluation of “fails to meet expectations,” the matter will be handled as an appeal under the School of Music Faculty Evaluation Plan Faculty Evaluation Policy.