Tomorrow's Professor Msg.#260 POST- TENURE REVIEW

Folks:

There is much talk these days about post-tenure review and its
possible impact on faculty careers. Below is an excerpt that gives
some background on two forms such reviews can take and how, at
present, they are distributed among various types of institutions.
The excerpt is from from Chapter 6, "After the Big Decision: Post
-Tenure Review Analyzed," in POLICIES ON FACULTY APPOINTMENT -
Standard Practices and Unusual Arrangements, Cathy A Trower, Editor,
Harvard University. Copyright © 2000 Anker Publishing Company,
reprinted with permission.

Regards,

Rick Reis
reis@stanford.edu
UP NEXT: Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience

Tomorrow's Academic Careers

> ------------------ 616 words -------------------

POST-TENURE REVIEW

From Chapter 6 - After the Big Decision: Post- Tenure Review Analyzed
POLICIES ON FACULTY APPOINTMENT - Standard Practices and
Unusual Arrangements, Cathy A Trower, Editor,
Anker Publishing Company

pp. 189-191

CATEGORIES

There are two main categories of post-tenure review: formative and
summative. Our use of the terms formative and summative differs
slightly from the definitions offered by both the AAUP and Licata and
Morreale. For our purposes, a "formative" review is purely
developmental and does not result in any administrative action. A
"summative" review, by contrast, may have a developmental purpose,
but may also result in administrative action. Administrative actions
include rewards, sanctions, and the creation of a faculty development
plan, and / or placing the letter of evaluation in the faculty
member's personnel file.

Of the 88 institutions with post-tenure review, 22 (25%) are clearly
formative, 61 (69%) are clearly summative, and five (6%) are hybrids.
(While our definition leaves little room for overlap, five
institutions explicitly refer to their post-tenure review policy as
both formative and summative.) The breakdown by Carnegie
classification appears in Table 6-4. Within each classification, the
percentage of summative post-tenure reviews far exceeds the
percentage of formative post-tenure reviews.

Table 6-4 Formative and Summative Post-Tenure reviews

Carnegie
Classification

------------------------------
R = Research Universities
D = Doctorate Universities
M = Comprehensive Universities
B = Baccalaureate Colleges
------------------------------

Formative Reviews

Mount Mercy College and Pacific University are among those
institutions with formative post-tenure review policies. At Mount
Mercy College (B2), tenured faculty members submit, materials to the
vice president for academic affairs:

The review is completed with a conference of the faculty member,
department chairperson (or division Chairperson) and the
vice-president for academic affairs. The purpose of the conference is
to provide feedback to the faculty member and discuss opportunities
for future career development of the faculty member.

At Pacific University (M2), the post-tenure review consists of the
following:

Every two years, the faculty personnel committee of the appropriate
college or school should provide guidance in writing to tenured
faculty regarding their record in meeting university expectations,
and make suggestions as to how their performance and contributions to
the university may be enhanced.

Formative reviews such as these have the clear purpose of guiding
faculty members and assisting them in meeting their full potential.
They do not
mention, however, what should happen if a post-tenure review reveals
deficiencies in production or performance.

Summative Reviews

In contrast, Georgia Institute of Technology, the University of
Louisville, and California Lutheran University all conducted
summative reviews of their tenured faculty. Such reviews have well
defined consequences and can lead to rewards, sanctions, or other
personnel or administrative actions. At Georgia Tech (R1),"where the
review indicates outstanding performance," faculty members may
receive "financial rewards and high development opportunities." Poor
reviews at Georgia Tech require faculty members to design, with input
from the chair and administrators, a development plan to correct
deficiencies. Similarly, faculty members who fail to meet criteria at
the University of Louisville (R2) shall also prepare "a development
plan, including specific requirements to be met within a specified
period." Disciplinary action may follow should the faculty member
receive subsequent unsatisfactory evaluations. And at California
Lutheran University (M1), unsatisfactory performance may lead to
further review and remedial activity, while exceptional performance
may result in a letter of commendation, additional funds for
development, or merit pay. In all three cases, as in the other 59
instances of summative reviews, consequences are clearly linked to
the results of the review.