|
Winthrop University
Faculty Manual
APPENDIX IV: POST-TENURE REVIEW
Preamble
Winthrop University’s mission as a comprehensive teaching university
depends upon the contributions of a strong and dedicated faculty. The University affirms
its commitment to tenure as essential to this mission and its need to support and reward
faculty in reaching their potential as teachers, scholars, creative artists and
professionals.
Winthrop has developed annual review, pre-tenure review, tenure and
promotion processes to provide feedback to faculty members on their performance, to
recognize and reward faculty for outstanding performance, and to assist faculty in
improving when their performance falls below expectations.
This post-tenure review process complements Winthrop’s other forms of
faculty evaluation and is the University’s response to the mandate in Act 359 (1996),
South Carolina’s performance funding legislation, that public institutions of higher
education include in their faculty performance review systems periodic peer evaluation of
tenured faculty members. This process complies with the "Best Practices for
Post-Tenure Review" mandated by the South Carolina Commission on Higher Education.
Winthrop University will periodically evaluate this procedure for its
effectiveness in achieving its goals and complementing the other aspects of the
performance review process. Should the Commission on Higher Education no longer require
post-tenure review, the University faculty, Vice President for Academic Affairs, President
and Board of Trustees will review this procedure and decide whether it should be
continued, particularly in light of the faculty time and effort involved and
Winthrop’s existing comprehensive faculty evaluation process.
I. Faculty Responsibilities
Winthrop University faculty are expected to meet their responsibilities to
the institution, our students, and the state, which collectively include the following
areas cited in the University’s tenure policy:
Teaching and instructional support
Scholarship and professional recognition
Service to the institution, community and profession
Individual faculty responsibilities are defined in terms of the role and
expectations for the faculty member within the department and should be viewed in the
context of the faculty member’s career stage, rank and individual goals.
Committees will write post-tenure review reports evaluating faculty in the
areas outlined above. The reports will be considered in decisions about faculty
development opportunities and salary increases.
Committees will also rate the performance of faculty as
"Satisfactory" or "Unsatisfactory." "Unsatisfactory" ratings
will be given in those instances and only in those instances in which the committee can
demonstrate that the faculty member is negligent or incompetent in the performance of his
or her primary responsibility.
At Winthrop, the primary responsibility for most faculty members is
defined as teaching. In the case of Library faculty members, the faculty member’s
primary responsibility is assisting with the education and information needs of the
faculty, students, and the public. For academic administrators, whose responsibilities may
not permit the ongoing pursuit of normal faculty activities, these faculty members’
primary responsibilities will be defined as their own teaching, research and service and
their support of other faculty and students in pursuit of these activities.
II. Frequency of Review and Exceptions
All tenured faculty will participate in post-tenure review every six
years. Faculty members will be reviewed in cohorts based on multiples of six years since
the year in which their tenure was effective (i. e., 6, 12, 18, 24 years, etc.):
Academic Year
Review Tenure
Was Effective Next
Review
1999-2000 63/69/75/81/87/93
2005
2000-01 64/70/76/82/88/94
2006
2001-02 65/71/77/83/89/95
2007
2002-03 66/72/78/84/90/96
2008
2003-04 67/73/79/85/91/97
2009
2004-05
62/68/74/80/86/92/98
2010
For tenured faculty who are awarded promotion after the post-tenure review
cycle begins (i. e., the promotion review takes place in 1999-2000 or after), the
promotion review will serve as the peer review required for post-tenure review; the next
post-tenure review will be scheduled six years after the year of promotion review.
Exceptions to the six-year cycle of post-tenure review:
Faculty who have signed statements of intention to retire within two
years after they are scheduled for post-tenure review will not participate in post-tenure
review.
Faculty who have been successfully reviewed for promotion and whose
promotions were effective in 1997-98, 1998-99 or 1999-2000 may request through the Vice
President for Academic Affairs that their review be deferred for a period of no more than
three years. The Vice President will consult with the department chair and dean and inform
the faculty member in writing whether the review will be rescheduled.
Faculty who take personal leave (e.g., sick leave, maternity leave,
etc.) for longer than one semester may request through the Vice President for Academic
Affairs that their review be deferred for a period appropriate to the duration of leave
taken. The Vice President will rule on the deferral in consultation with the faculty
member’s dean and department chair and inform the faculty member in writing of the
year in which post-tenure review will take place. This deferral does not apply to faculty
who have received sabbatical leaves or other leaves for development purposes.
Faculty members who wish to request that their review be rescheduled
(for example, because of a sabbatical or other leave for development purposes which will
take them away from campus during the year post-tenure review is scheduled) should make
their request in writing to the Vice President for Academic Affairs, who will consult with
the dean and department chair and inform the faculty member in writing whether the review
will be rescheduled.
Department chairs will be reviewed according to the schedule and
procedures for faculty members. Academic deans, associate and assistant deans with rank as
tenured faculty members will be reviewed according to the procedures for academic
administrators included in this document. Post-tenure review of the President, the Vice
President for Academic Affairs, and associate vice presidents for academic affairs will be
deferred until after they have returned to the faculty for three years.
The Office of Academic Affairs will maintain the post-tenure review
schedule and be responsible for informing faculty members when their post-tenure reviews
will take place.
III. Review Committee
A. Membership on Post-Tenure Review Committees
All members of post-tenure review committees will be tenured Winthrop
faculty.
No faculty member will serve on a post-tenure review committee in the
year in which he or she is scheduled for post-tenure review. A faculty member may be
called upon to serve on more than one post-tenure review committee in a year.
In most cases, associate deans and assistant deans will not serve on
review committees in their own departments; however, in small departments where
insufficient numbers of eligible faculty are available, they may serve on review
committees. Associate and assistant deans and department chairs may serve on committees
outside their departments. In no case will a department chair or dean serve on a review
committee for a faculty member from his or her department.
For department chairs and associate and assistant deans, the dean will
perform the functions described below for department chairs; for deans, the Vice President
for Academic Affairs will perform the functions described below for deans.
B. Procedure for Selecting Committee Members
The faculty member being reviewed will submit a list of possible
committee members to the department chair.
The committee will be selected by the department chair in consultation
with the faculty member being reviewed. A majority of the committee must be chosen from
the list of suggested members provided by the faculty member.
The department chair will submit the list of committee members to the
dean, who will approve the committee as complying with post-tenure review policies and
procedures. The faculty member can appeal to the dean for reconsideration of the
appointment of any committee members who are not selected from the list provided.
C. Composition of the Committee
For faculty members, reviews will be conducted by a committee of three
faculty members:
One member of the committee from the faculty member’s department
(if there are sufficient numbers of tenured faculty members).
One member external to the department.
A third faculty member, preferably to be chosen from within the faculty
member’s department.
For assistant and associate deans, the committee will include:
One faculty member (if there are sufficient numbers of tenured faculty)
from the associate/assistant dean’s academic department.
One additional faculty member from the academic unit in which he or she
serves
One assistant or associate dean from another academic unit.
For academic deans, the committee will include:
One faculty member (if there are sufficient numbers of tenured faculty)
from the dean’s academic department.
One additional faculty member from the academic unit in which he or she
serves.
One dean from another academic unit.
IV. Materials to be Considered in the Review
Faculty members being reviewed should submit the following materials:
A concise statement (2-3 pages) from the faculty member assessing his or
her performance in the areas of teaching, scholarly attainment and professional
recognition, and service since the last review (if necessary beyond statements included in
annual reports); the statement may also address the faculty member’s role and
expectations within the department and goals and directions for the next six years.
A current curriculum vitae.
Annual reports with department chair’s and dean’s evaluations
for the last six years.
Detailed information about the outcomes of any sabbatical leave awarded
during the six-year post-tenure review period.
The committee may request additional information from the faculty member
under review.
If desired by a faculty member, the committee may send evidence of
scholarly activity and, as appropriate, teaching effectiveness and service to one or more
reviewers outside the University. External reviewers will be selected by the committee in
consultation with the faculty member being reviewed.
V. Results of the Review
A. Committee Report
The review committee will write a post-tenure review report evaluating the
faculty member’s performance and rating him or her as "Satisfactory" or
"Unsatisfactory." The report will provide evidence for the committee’s
rating and suggestions for future performance and development. The committee will send
copies of the report to the faculty member under review, who will be given the opportunity
to respond in writing to the review.
B. Satisfactory Review
In the case of a "Satisfactory" review, the committee’s
report will document areas in which the faculty member has excelled and make
recommendations for future performance and development.
The report, with the faculty member’s response (if any), will be sent
from the committee to the department chair and to the dean. The department chair and the
dean may attach statements to the report indicating the degree to which they concur with
the report; these statements will also be sent to the committee and the faculty member.
However, in the case of a "Satisfactory" evaluation, the committee report cannot
be overturned nor the rating changed to "Unsatisfactory" by the chair or the
dean.
The committee report will be considered by department chairs and deans in
the faculty review system and in decisions concerning faculty development salary
increases. A copy of the report and all supporting statements will be kept in the
dean’s office.
A list of faculty members who have received "Satisfactory"
post-tenure reviews in a unit will be forwarded annually to the vice President for
academic affairs.
C. Unsatisfactory Review
In the case of an "Unsatisfactory" review, the committee’s
report will document in what ways the faculty member is negligent or incompetent in the
performance of his or her primary responsibility.
The committee will recommend a development plan, to include
activities to improve performance
a timeline (two years) for completing the development plan
suggested resources to support the plan
methods for assessing achievement of the goals and expectations,
including peer and student evaluation of performance.
The department chair will prepare a written statement indicating whether
he or she agrees or disagrees with the evaluation, then forward the committee report, the
faculty member’s response (if any) and the chair’s statement to the dean. The
chair’s statement will also be sent to the committee and the faculty member.
The dean will prepare a written statement indicating whether he or she
agrees or disagrees with the evaluation and forward the report and statements from the
faculty member, the chair and the dean to the Vice President for Academic Affairs. The
dean’s statement will also be sent to the committee, the faculty member and the
department chair.
The Vice President for Academic Affairs will respond in writing to the
dean, department chair, the committee and the faculty member indicating whether he or she
agrees with the "Unsatisfactory" rating.
If the department chair, dean or Vice President disagrees with the
"Unsatisfactory" rating, they will discuss the rating and, if two of them agree,
the rating will be changed to "Satisfactory."
If the department chair, dean and Vice President agree with the
"Unsatisfactory" rating, another review of the faculty member’s performance
will be completed after two years. The department chair will retain a complete copy of the
materials submitted for the review, the committee report, and any statements from the
faculty member, department chair, dean and vice President.
D. Second Review after an Unsatisfactory Evaluation
The second review will take place within three months of the completion of
the two-year development plan. As feasible, the committee which conducted the previous
review will be reconvened to conduct the second review. If a committee member is
unavailable for the second review, a replacement will be chosen by the department chair in
consultation with the faculty member.
The following materials will be provided to the committee by the faculty
member and department chair:
a complete copy of the materials from the first review (see above, V C
7)
annual reports for the years during which the development plan is in
place, with the department chair’s and dean’s statements
information related to teaching effectiveness, including syllabi,
assignments and other course materials from the period during which the development plan
is in place
complete sets of student evaluations from all courses taught by the
faculty member during the period in which the development plan is in place
a statement from the faculty member delineating the activities
undertaken during the development period with a self-evaluation of the outcomes of the
completed development plan
copies of the results of any assessments required by the development
plan
a statement from the chair documenting resources provided to support the
development plan
any other materials which the faculty member feels address his or her
progress within the context of the development plan.
The committee will review the materials above and decide whether the
faculty member has made significant progress toward addressing the problems identified in
the initial "Unsatisfactory" review. If the committee decides that the faculty
member has fully and successfully addressed all issues, the committee will return a rating
of "Satisfactory," with the next review to take place in six years.
If the committee returns an "Unsatisfactory" evaluation on the
second review, the faculty member can add a response to the committee report, which is
forwarded to the department chair.
The department chair will prepare a written statement indicating whether
he or she agrees or disagrees with the evaluation, then forward the committee report, the
faculty member’s response (if any) and the chair’s statement to the dean. The
chair’s statement will also be sent to the committee and the faculty member.
The dean will prepare a written statement indicating whether he or she
agrees or disagrees with the evaluation and forward the report and statements from the
faculty member, the chair and the dean to the Vice President for Academic Affairs. The
dean’s statement will also be sent to the committee, the faculty member and the
department chair.
The Vice President for Academic Affairs will respond in writing to the
dean, department chair, the committee and the faculty member indicating whether he or she
agrees with the "Unsatisfactory" rating.
If the department chair, dean or Vice President disagrees with the
"Unsatisfactory" rating, they will discuss the rating and, if two of
them agree, the rating will be changed to "Satisfactory."
As mandated by the Commission on Higher Education, if a faculty member
fails to make substantial progress towards the performance goals outlined in the
development plan within the specified two-year period and does not receive a
"Satisfactory"" on the on subsequent review, the Vice President can require that the development plan be
continued for another two years, or can recommend that the institution initiate procedures
for dismissal of the faculty member, as outlined in the Winthrop University Faculty
Manual.
VI. Appeals Process
The Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure will serve as the appeals
committee in all cases involving post-tenure review.
A. Basis for Appeals and Actions by the Appeals Committee
A faculty member may appeal the results of a post-tenure review rating for
any of the following reasons:
An appeal on the basis that the procedures and timetable outlined in
this document were not followed or that the post-tenure review committee was improperly
constituted or improperly directed, which resulted in an incorrect finding or
recommendation.
An appeal of the substance of the committee’s evaluation of the
faculty member’s performance as "Unsatisfactory." Such appeals should
reflect a set of unusual or extraordinary circumstances and will require considerable
supporting evidence, particularly in cases in which the review committee, department
chair, dean and Vice President for Academic Affairs concurred in the evaluation.
An appeal of the development plan, requesting an adjustment of the plan
recommended by the review committee and approved by the Vice President for Academic
Affairs.
Depending on the nature of the appeal, the Committee on Academic Freedom
and Tenure may suggest
that the evaluation of the post-tenure review committee be allowed to
stand
that the development plan recommended by the review committee be revised
that a new committee be constituted and the review process repeated in
the following year, using the same procedures as for all post-tenure reviews.
B. Procedures for Appeals
Any faculty member who desires to appeal should, within five days of
receiving the vice President’s evaluation and development plan, forward to the
President and the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure:
A letter outlining the basis for the appeal and stating the desired
outcome (revision of development plan or review by a new post-tenure review committee).
The entire post-tenure review package, including the committee’s
report, any response from the faculty member, and the department chair’s, dean’s
and vice President’s statements.
Within two weeks, the committee will forward its findings to the
President, the academic vice President, and the faculty member. The committee’s
report should reflect the basis and evidence for the appeal and recommend one of the
courses of action listed above.
Within two weeks of receiving the report of the Committee on Academic
Freedom and Tenure, the President will report to the Committee, the Academic Vice
President and faculty member whether the development plan should be revised, whether a new
review should be completed in the next academic year, or whether the post-tenure review
committee’s evaluation should be allowed to stand.
Should the President not respond to the Committee’s recommendation
within two weeks, the Committee’s recommendation will be allowed to stand.
VII. Timetable
May 1 Vice President for Academic Affairs updates post-tenure
review list
and notifies
deans of those faculty to be reviewed the following year.
May 15 Deans notify faculty (and their department chairs) who will
be reviewed
in the
following year.
Sept 15 Faculty member provides the department chair a list of
faculty
members to
be considered for the review committee.
Oct 15 Department chair selects the committee and forwards
list to the dean
for
approval; faculty member is notified of the committee membership.
Faculty
member provides committee with materials for the review.
Nov 1 Faculty member may appeal the composition of the
committee to the
dean.
Feb 1 Committee sends its report to the faculty
member and department
chair.
Feb 15 Faculty member responds to the report if he or she
wishes.
Mar 1 Department chair adds a written statement and
forwards the report,
with the
faculty member’s response, to the dean.
Mar 15 In the case of "Satisfactory" ratings, the dean
adds a statement and
returns the
report, with all supporting statements, to the faculty
member. A
copy of the department chair’s and dean’s response will be
shared with
the committee. A copy of the report and all supporting
statements
is kept in the dean’s office.
Mar 30 The list of faculty members receiving
"Satisfactory" reviews is
forwarded
to the vice President.
In the case of "Unsatisfactory" reviews:
Feb 1 Committee sends its report to the faculty member
and department chair.
Feb 15 Faculty member responds to the report if he or she wishes.
Mar 1 Department chair adds a written statement and forwards
the report,
with the faculty
member’s response, to the dean.
Mar 15 Dean adds a statement to the report and forwards all supporting
materials and
statements to the vice President, department chair,
committee and
faculty member.
Mar 31 After conferring with the department chair and dean, the vice
President
responds in
writing to the faculty member, dean, department chair and
committee. If
this response results in a "Satisfactory" rating, the dean’s
office will
maintain a copy of all reports and supporting statements.
If this response
results in an "Unsatisfactory" rating, the faculty member
begins the
development plan and will be reviewed again after two years.
Review of
satisfactory progress on the development plan at the end of
two years will
follow the same timetable as the original review.
Apr 6 Appeals due to the Committee on Academic Freedom and
Tenure.
Apr 20 Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure forwards its response to
the President, Vice
President and faculty member.
May 5 President’s response due to the faculty member, Vice
President and
dean and to the
Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure. A copy
of the report on the
President’s final decision is kept in the dean’s office.
| 
