Post-tenure Review Procedures
Note: The post-tenure review procedures were originally issued in a memo dated June 19, 1998 and subsequently revised in a memo dated April 6, 2000. The current procedures, schedules and timetables below are excerpts from the memo sent to the academic deans from the Executive Vice President and Provost dated April 6, 2000.
I write to amplify and clarify our policies and procedures regarding the sixth-year periodic evaluation of tenured faculty. The detailed procedures and guidelines in Section 3.14 of Handbook of Operating Procedures and related post-tenure review materials can be found at http://www.utexas.edu/provost/policies/post_tenure/. The current procedures, schedules, and timetables are listed below.
The 1998 timetable for conducting the annual review of all faculty and the sixth-year periodic review of tenured faculty is reaffirmed. The additions and clarifying comments shown below in bold address issues that have been raised during the past two years and are designed to strengthen these procedures.
Timetable for Post-tenure Review
| March 31 | All tenured faculty members to undergo the sixth-year periodic evaluation in the fall of the following academic year will be notified. Faculty are to be given individual notice of at least six months of intent to evaluate. |
| May 31 | Copies of previous annual reports, statistical summaries of student teaching evaluations for the review period, and the results of previous annual reviews for the evaluation period are given to each faculty member to be reviewed. |
| October 1 | Faculty member submits a resume and annual report for the prior academic year to the department chair (or dean in non-departmentalized colleges/schools), as well as any additional materials the faculty member wants considered. |
| Oct.-Dec. |
Every department (or non-departmentalized college/school)
shall establish an appropriate faculty review committee to conduct
the sixth-year periodic evaluations. For those tenured faculty
undergoing the sixth-year periodic evaluation, this review will
be combined with the annual review.
The sixth-year periodic review by the departmental committee shall be based upon an evaluation of the resume, student evaluations of teaching for the review period, annual reports for the evaluation period, and all materials submitted by the faculty member. Upon his or her request, the faculty member shall be provided an opportunity to meet with the evaluation committee. The committee should base its decision on this record. As discussed below, in the case of an unsatisfactory evaluation, and if a dean determines that a more intensive evaluation is needed, the peer committee appointed by the dean may solicit additional evaluation information. A departmental evaluation committee shall advise a faculty member when it appears that an unsatisfactory evaluation is likely. The committee shall offer the faculty member the opportunity to meet with the committee and provide any additional information he or she wants considered before the committee concludes its deliberations and makes its findings. In the case of an unsatisfactory evaluation the evaluation committee’s report to the department chair (or dean in non-departmentalized college/school) shall provide sufficient written documentation to identify the area(s) of unsatisfactory performance and the general basis for the committee’s decision. |
| February 1 | No later than February 1, the department chair (or dean in non-departmentalized colleges/schools) shall communicate the results of the sixth-year periodic evaluation in writing to each faculty member who was evaluated, and to the dean for appropriate action. |
| February | Dean forwards a summary report of departmental or school outcomes to the Provost. To permit the Provost’s Office to maintain a central database for post-tenure review schedules, the names of the faculty reviewed and the outcome in each case should be included in the report you forward. The names of the faculty subject to review but who were not reviewed due to retirement, resignation, or other reason should also be reported with a notation as to why they were not reviewed. |
| February | Where appropriate, the dean appoints a college-level peer
review committee. This committee shall have a membership
different from that of the promotion and tenure committee, and
shall comprise only faculty of the same or higher rank as the
faculty member being reviewed. |
| August 1 | No later than August 1, the college-level peer review committee reports its findings to the faculty member, and to the department chair and the dean for review and appropriate action. The Dean forwards a report of outcomes to the Provost. The Dean and the Provost will discuss the nature and substance of any unsatisfactory report and determine the appropriate action in accord with established University policies and procedures for handling faculty issues. |
Please let me know if there are additional issues or improvements that we should consider as we gain more experience with this process.
