Senate Document Number 6405S
of Senate Approval
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Statement of Faculty Senate Action:
FWDC 4: 2005 Revisions to the Post-Tenure Review Process (Revision to SD1000F Faculty Handbook section 3.7)
Effective Date: Fall 2005
Rationale: Changes listed are both editorial and clarification of current policy. Items to be removed appear in brackets and items added appear bold and underlined.
Post-Tenure review at UNC Asheville is a periodic, comprehensive, cumulative review of tenured members of the faculty that emphasizes peer participation. The primary purpose of Post-Tenure Review (PTR) is to ensure continued faculty development and promote faculty vitality.
3.7.1 Objectives of Post-Tenure Review
Entirely separate from reviews for reappointment, tenure, and promotion, PTR is a formative process that focuses on identifying specific areas of strength among senior faculty and, when appropriate, areas requiring more concentrated development efforts. PTR recognizes and respects disciplinary differences in pedagogy and in the focus of faculty professional activities. This procedure recognizes that each faculty member is reviewed annually by the department chair and that this review is a comprehensive evaluation of teaching, scholarship, and service. The PTR creates a summary of several years of professional activity that may address trends not immediately obvious in an annual comprehensive review and annual faculty record. As professionals, faculty will welcome opportunities for and are committed to professional growth. The faculty assume primary responsibility for the implementation of activities which foster professional growth in ways that support the missions of their programs and the University as well as their own professional career(s). Professional development plans (see Section 3.7.3 below) will identify resource support necessary to accomplish specified goals. The [VCAA] Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs (hereafter referred to as Provost) is responsible for approval of these plans and allocation of any special resource support required to accomplish the objectives of the plan(s).
3.7.2 Procedure for Evaluation
For the purpose of these sections, the words “Department Chair” and “Chair” (except where Post Tenure Review Committee Chair is noted) refers to any faculty member who directly evaluates the PTR evaluee for merit, reappointment, tenure or promotion.
1. The term "faculty member" includes all persons on a nine or twelve-month contract who teaches one half or more of a full load and librarians with faculty rank. A faculty member who accepts an administrative appointment which results in teaching less than one half of a full load will have their PTR review period extended by the time served in this appointment.
2. After an initial phase-in period, tenured faculty members shall be evaluated [no less frequently than] every five years. During this phase-in period, faculty who have gone the longest since their last review for tenure or promotion will be evaluated first. The [VCAA] Provost may approve the postponement of Post-Tenure Review in a case of illness, leave of absence, family emergency or other similar circumstances.
3. A review for promotion will take precedence over the PTR process and may replace it as follows. When faculty members apply for promotion in the same year they are to be evaluated for PTR, the PTR will be postponed. If successful, the review for promotion will satisfy the requirement for PTR and will start a new five-year PTR clock for the faculty member who is promoted. If the review for promotion is not successful, however, the faculty member will complete the PTR process in the following year, even if the application for promotion is renewed. Thus, post-tenure reviews will be deferred by an application for promotion only once.
4. In the Spring before the academic year in which a tenured faculty member is to be evaluated, the [VCAA] Provost begins the evaluation process by notifying the selected tenured faculty members and requesting them to begin assembling materials for the review committee. In this process, the [Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs] Provost serves as facilitator and convener.
5. The evaluation will be performed by a University-wide committee called the Post-Tenure Review Committee (PTRC).
6. Evaluation of tenured faculty members is peer evaluation. The committee will consider a variety of materials. Peer observation of teaching will always be one of the procedures employed in the evaluation.
7. The [Post Tenure Review Committee] [( ] PTRC [ )] will review a dossier containing documents from several sources. The evaluee will submit the items noted (see A 1-4, below) to the Chair of his or her department. The Chair will provide items 5 and 6. For evaluation of Chairs the most senior tenured member of the department/program will normally assume the duties of the Chair, as described below.
A. Completed Dossier *
The evaluee's dossier is assembled by the Chair (or, for
evaluation of Chairs, by the most senior tenured member of the department) and
submitted to the PTRC. The complete dossier will include, in order:
1) The Evaluee's Statement focusing on the five years of the PTR review period (submitted by Evaluee to Chair);
2) The Professional Curriculum Vitae (submitted by Evaluee to Chair);
3) Chair's Evaluation (prepared by the Chair, or for the review of Chairs, by the most senior tenured member of the department);
4) Results from Peer Observation of Classroom Teaching (prepared by the Chair)
5) Annual Faculty Records (past five years, collected by [VCAA] Provost and submitted to the Chair);
6) Merit Evaluations (past five years, collected by [VCAA] Provost and submitted to the Chair);
7) Summary of numbers from course evaluations over the past five years (provided by Office of Institutional Research to the Chair). Written student comments may be requested by the PTRC and will be made available.
* Failure of the evaluee to provide materials for his or her dosier in a timely fashion may result in sanctions imposed by the Provost.
B. The Evaluee's Statement
1) Purpose: The Evaluee's Statement should be a reflective, self-assessment that comments on the evaluee's past, present and future contributions to the department, the university and their missions. This statement may also be used to discuss factors and extenuating circumstances affecting the evaluee's performance, which are not usually covered in the listing of activities by category. The evaluee should refer to categories outlined in Section 220.127.116.11 of the Faculty Handbook.
2) Format: The Evaluee's Statement should be written as a cover letter to the Chair of the PTRC. The statement is written in narrative form; possible issues to address, along with categories and guidelines for evaluating performance, are discussed in Section 18.104.22.168. The Evaluee should also outline briefly, his or her professional plans for the next five years, again, in the context of the department and university mission, which may also include a discussion of resources required.
C. The Professional Curriculum Vitae
1) Purpose: The complete curriculum vitae puts the evaluee's professional work at UNCA into perspective relative to the individual's career in general. This allows the PTRC to evaluate the individual's recent activities or changing emphases at UNCA in light of his or her previous levels of activity and responsibilities.
2) Format: The vita should be written in a format appropriate to apply for an academic position in the discipline. It should include information about the evaluee's education, degrees, awards, honors, professional employment and most important, papers/publications/artistic activities, grant activities, professional consultancies and major service activities.
D. Materials supporting professional activity (submitted by evaluee to Department Chair, if requested)
1) Purpose: Materials selected by the evaluee are meant to emphasize or augment the vita regarding teaching, scholarly and service activities. Materials provided should be chosen to illuminate the quality of the evaluee's activities rather than duplicate those reported in the vita.
2) Format: Materials provided by the evaluee should be representative and only a sampling, supporting:
a) Teaching: Representative syllabi, assignments, student work or other materials illustrating teaching practices and student learning.
b) Scholarship/Creative Activity: Representative scholarly papers, letters of commendation, awards, reviews of scholarly, creative or performance activities.
c) Service: Representative professional service activities to local or greater community, letters of commendation, awards, etc.
E. Results of Peer Observation of Teaching (provided by the Chair of the department and assembled in the dossier submitted to the PTRC)
1) Purpose: Evaluations of teaching by peer observation supplement other measures of effective teaching.
2) Format: Each peer observer should submit a one to two page written summary of his or her observations to the faculty member, and the Chair of the evaluee's department. Reports must include specific comments on the dimensions cited above.
F. Chair's Evaluation (provided by the Chair of the department and assembled in the dossier submitted to the PTRC)
1) Purpose: The Chair's Evaluation has always been central to decisions concerning reappointment, tenure and promotion. It is a summary evaluation that, when viewed together with the evaluations appended to the Faculty record, provides an historical account of the evaluee's overall performance as viewed by the Chair.
2) Format: The Chair's Evaluation should be written in simple narrative form, to the Chair of the PTRC, addressing the evaluee's past, present and future contributions to the department, the university and their missions. This statement may also be used to address factors and extenuating circumstances affecting the evaluee's performance, which are not usually covered in the listing of activities by category. The Chair must consult with faculty colleagues and report on that consultation (as is the case for reappointment, tenure and promotion reviews, see Section 22.214.171.124). For purposes of faculty development, the Chair should discuss the evaluation with the faculty member, prior to submission of the evaluation to the PTRC.
8. The faculty member and his or her Chair will provide all materials to the Office of Academic Affairs by December 1.
9. For Post-Tenure Review of Chairs, the most senior tenured member of the department will normally assume the duties of the Chair. However, a Chair who perceives a conflict of interest with that person may petition the [VCAA] Provost to appoint another tenured faculty member to those responsibilities. If no tenured member is available within the department, the [VCAA] Provost may appoint one from a department within the same division of the university, giving weight to seniority of UNCA service and consulting with the Committee on Faculty Welfare and Development.
3.7.3 Results of Post-Tenure Review
1. The PTRC will write a report that will go to the faculty member, the department chair, and the [Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs] Provost. The report will be submitted by March 1.
2. The evaluee has the right to challenge any of the contents of the PTRC's report by submitting, to the [Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs] Provost, any further evidence, mitigating or complicating circumstances, etc. This must be in a letter received in the [Vice Chancellor's] Provost’s office within fourteen calendar days of the submission of the PTRC's report. The [VCAA] Provost will respond within twenty-one calendar days of receiving the challenge letter.
3. The PTRC is advisory to the [VCAA] Provost and like the committee for tenure review makes recommendations directly to the [VCAA] Provost. During initial review of an evaluee, the PTRC makes one of two recommendations:
A. The faculty member has performed at a Successful level. The Post-Tenure Review process will then be complete. The PTR Committee Report will be sent to the faculty member, with copies to the Chair and the [VCAA] Provost. The Report will express collegial appreciation for contributions to the mission of UNC Asheville, and will take note of any performances, accomplishments or contributions that appear excellent or exemplary. The Report may express support for the provision of university resources such as a Teaching-Scholarship Year, or an Off-Campus Scholarly Assignment when the faculty member has shown that this will benefit future excellence.
B. The evaluee has one or more areas that require concentrated development efforts. The PTR Committee advisory report dossier will be sent to the [VCAA] Provost for further review and final decision, with copies to the evaluee and the Chair. The Report will identify the area or areas of concern while noting any performances or accomplishments that appear commendable or excellent. The faculty member may challenge the advisory report as provided above.
If the [VCAA] Provost affirms the Report after considering a challenge, or affirms an unchallenged report, the faculty member will construct a Development Plan in consultation with the Chair and the Associate [VCAA] Vice Chancellor assigned as liaison to the PTR process. The Plan will address the area or areas that warrant improvement. The Plan will include a time when the evaluee will again be reviewed by the PTRC - no less than one year later, up to three years later. The Chair and the [VCAA] Provost will review the plan to determine resource implications. The Plan must be approved by the [VCAA] Provost.
Development Plans may include provision for a Peer Mentor who is requested by the Evaluee and approved by the [VCAA] Provost. Peer Mentors should be senior members of the faculty who are skillful in collegial relationships and recognized for excellence in the area(s) requiring improvement. On request a Peer Mentor may be appointed before the Development Plan is finalized.
4. At the conclusion of the term specified in the development plan the evaluee will be reviewed a second time by the PTRC. The committee will review the original file, the development plan, and a new file documenting developmental progress. In all of the following contingency proceedings, the PTR Advisory Report will be sent to the [VCAA] Provost for review and final decision, with copies to the evaluee and the chair. The PTRC now can make one of three recommendations to the [VCAA] Provost:
A. The evaluee is performing at a Successful Level. The advisory Report will recognize developmental progress and take note of any added accomplishments, performances or contributions to the mission of UNCA which are commendable or excellent.
B. The evaluee has made some progress toward remediating problem areas but should continue his/her efforts,
C. The evaluee has failed to make any progress toward improvement and warrants sanctions. In a case that warrants sanctions the [VCAA] Provost will decide the nature of these sanctions. Before implementing these the [VCAA] Provost should consult with the PTRC, much as the [VCAA] Provost now consults with the Committee of Tenured Faculty before issuing a denial of tenure, but the final decision, as with tenure, is up to the [VCAA] Provost.
If the [VCAA] Provost affirms a PTRC Report that recommends continued development work, the evaluee will revise the plan in consultation with his/her Chair and the Associate Vice Chancellor [for Academic Affairs] assigned as liaison to the PTR process and come before the PTRC one final time in 1-2 years.
5. If a final review is warranted, the PTRC now can make only one of two recommendations:
A. The PTRC advises that the evaluee is performing at a Successful Level. The report will acknowledge developmental progress and take note of any new performances, accomplishments or contributions to the mission of UNCA that appear excellent or commendable.
B. The PTRC advises that the evaluee has failed to make sufficient progress toward improvement and warrants sanctions.
6. Any sanctions including discharge or other disciplinary action imposed on faculty members for continuing deficiency in performance shall be in compliance with the criteria and procedures for due process as established in Chapter VI, Sections 602, 603, and 605 of The Code of the University of North Carolina.