"...academic departments like to think that they hire well, evaluate well early on, and award tenure to people who will function well to the end of their careers."Tomorrow's Professor Msg.#433 POSTTENURE REVIEW; THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOMFolks: The posting below looks at the development of posttenure review and the many different forms it is now taking. It is from Chapter 1, Why is development of tenured faculty a concern? in Posttenure Faculty Development, Building a System for Faculty Improvement and Appreciation, by Jeffrey W. Alsete. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report Volume 27. Number 4, Adrianna J. Kezar, series editor. Prepared and published by JOSSEY-BASS, A Wiley Company, San Francisco. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Reprinted with permission. Regards, UP NEXT: Balancing Teaching and Research Tomorrow's Academia ----------------------------- 1,906 words --------------------------- POSTTENURE REVIEW; THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM Jeffrey W. Alsete pp. 8-11. In 1986, one writer believed that performance evaluation for tenured faculty was so controversial that it could not be discusses openly in most colleges and universities (Reisman, 1986). He compared it with the situation that occurs in psychotherapy when patients ignore a central reality, one that seems obvious and important, in their personal situation; therapists refer to it as "the elephant in the room" (p.73). Although many universities had some form of performance evaluation of faculty-annual reviews for salary increments, students' evaluation of courses, periodic reviews for promotion, for example-only a small number of universities actually had a formal institutional policy. The Association of American Colleges (AAC) and the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), which sponsored the Commission on Academic Tenure in 1971, recommended corrections for the deficiencies in the tenure system (Bennett and Chater, 1984); several recommendations were related to evaluating tenured faculty members. Posttenure review began to really emerge as an issue in the early 1980s. In 1982, the National Commission on Higher Education Issues identified posttenure review as a major issue facing higher education and recommended that a system of peer review be developed on campuses to help ensure faculty members' competence and to strengthen institutional quality (Licata, 1986). At the urging of the American Council on Education, a Wingspread Conference on periodic evaluation of tenured faculty was held in 1983 in cooperation with the AAUP (Reisman, 1986). The conference invited both proponents and opponents (such as the AAUP) of posttenure review to voice their beliefs. Harold Shapiro, then president of the university of Michigan, pointed out faculty members' fundamental concerns about this issue, noting that tenure is an anchor so ingrained in faulty perceptions of their roles that the academic community would be diminished and even ruptured by posttenure review. In fact, he went so far as to say that it is suspect for a university administrator or trustee to even speculate formally about the subject. Although it appeared that the elephant in the room was still invisible to many attendees at the Wingspread Conference, Shapiro concluded that periodic evaluation of tenured faculty was good personnel policy and can play a nurturing role in faculty development (Reisman, 1986). The awarding of and continued existence of tenure is not really the central issue in the current debates about tenure. The real issues today are honest faculty evaluation, including posttenure review; adequate faculty development, including posttenure development; and termination when appropriate, linked to effective evaluation (Perley, 1995). This monograph includes examples of how posttenure review and faculty development can work together, yet not be formally connected, to improve faculty instruction, intellectual contributions, and service. Professor Charles M. Larsen was actually the one who introduced a "different kind of posttenure review, a system better termed development" (Reisman, 1986, p.76). Larson believed that the focus of such a review would be on the positive goals of faculty support and improvement, not just on the negative procedures designed to weed out individuals who may not be living up to their responsibilities. The concept of using performance evaluation for developmental purposes rather than for decisions about promotion, salary, or termination is not a new concept in the education literature, and the idea of two types of evaluation is discussed in a series of articles appearing in the 1960s (Reisman, 1986, p.77). A distinction can be made between formative evaluation designed to provide useful feedback to guide an ongoing activity designed for improvement and summative evaluation "aimed at answering a question in a final or terminal way" (Geis, 1977, p.25). Similarly, two types of posttenure review have been termed "self evaluation" (formative) and "formal evaluation" (summative (Sullivan, 1977, pp. 130-148). An earlier ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report offered an overview of the factors influencing posttenure review, stated the support and opposition, and gave then current examples at colleges and universities (Licata, 1986). The report concluded that faculty development programs should be linked to a posttenure evaluation system. In other words, the formative should be linked to the summative. This strategy, while logical at first reading, goes against established management theory stating that evaluation should be separate from development (Meyer, Kay, and French, 1965). Research has shown that it is unrealistic to expect a single performance appraisal program to take care of all employee and institutional needs. A linked strategy would force the evaluator into a self-conflicting role as a counselor (trying to help improve faculty performance) while at the same time presiding as a judge over the action to be taken on the same professor's salary. Separating the two functions could also avoid the potential problem with some faculty who may set their professional development goals too low if they know serious consequences would result from not achieving them. A later work also discusses the need for posttenure review and expands the definition to include five different methods: 1. Annual reviews-A short-term performance assessment that is common at many institutions and is often linked to merit pay. In some settings, these reviews are perfunctory and not effective at providing feedback for long-term career development and overall performance. 2. Summative (periodic/consequential)-A comprehensive review of all tenured faculty conducted periodically. Improved plans are used and the results are assessed with consequences for nonperformance. 3. Summative (triggered/consequential)-The comprehensive review of selected tenured faculty that is usually triggered by unsatisfactory performance. 4. Formative (departmental)-A review centering on the establishment of a professional development plan emphasizing the institution's needs and individual faculty members' career interests. Developed with the department head or dean. 5. Formative (individual)-Periodic review of all tenured faculty focusing on specific performance areas and long-term career goals. This option does not question competence and does not include formal personnel action (Licata and Morreale, 1997). According to Licata and Morreale, the most useful system of posttenure review is a combination of Option 2 (summative-periodic/consequential) and Option 4 (formative-departmental) (p.36). Other research has shown that performance evaluation of tenured faculty is perceived (by a survey of department chairs and administrators) to be more effective than reports completed by faculty or departmental reviews, and that developmental reviews are perceived to be more effective than those tied to salary reviews (Reisman, 1986). In addition, faculty performance in scholarship or research is believed to be more easily influenced by development strategies than the teaching or service components of faculty performance, probably because research by its nature can be more easily quantified that the more ambiguous quality assessment of postsecondary teaching and service to the community. Critics of posttenure evaluation and development must understand that it is the performance (usually research, teaching, and service) of the tenured individual under evaluation (or development), not the tenure of the individual (Bennet and Chater, 1984). Although tenure itself is indeed under attack in many ways, it is more often a change or addition to tenure-such as adding posttenure review procedures-that is occurring today. One recent survey of 680 colleges and universities found that 61% of respondents had a posttenure review policy in place and that another 9% had such a policy under development (Harris, 1996). These numbers are not surprising, given the increase in the public's calls for accountability and the decrease in budgets at many state colleges and universities. (Goodman, 1994). In addition, the federally mandated uncapping of the retirement age for college and university faculty that went into effect January 1, 1994, has added to the reasons that posttenure review is becoming more common. Many faculty are understandably worried, for "tenure does not provide an absolute right to continue employment. The periodic review of faculty performance is one manner of addressing the ever present need to ensure excellence in the university" (Olswang and Fantel, 1980, p. 30). Moreover, periodic reviews would not violate academic freedom, despite the pleas of many faculty to keep tenure as it is (Olswang and Fantel, 1980). Nevertheless, a faculty member at Colorado College points out that a system of formal posttenure review would cause the faculty to become angry (Cramer, 1997), believing that tenure review is a very high stress time for individuals and that academic departments like to think that they hire well, evaluate well early on, and award tenure to people who will function well to the end of their careers (see also Brittain, 1992). The AAUP is moving toward a more positive opinion of posttenure review, with faculty development as the primary goal. The association's current policy, adopted in 1983, states that periodic formal evaluation of tenured faculty would bring little benefit and would incur unacceptable costs in money and time, and reduce creativity and collegial relationships (American Association of University Professors, 1997). The association also believes it could threaten academic freedom. A more recent report on the subject, however, issued by the AAUP's Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure, admits that posttenure review is rapidly becoming a reality and that the association might as well create a set of guidelines for the establishment of a system for the periodic evaluation of tenured faculty (American Association of University Professors, 1997). The report states that if such a system is designed and implemented by the faculty in a form that properly protects academic freedom and tenure, it could offer a way of evaluating tenured faculty that supports professional development as well as professional responsibility. Subsection IV.B. of "Standards for Good Practice in Post-Tenure Review" suggest that posttenure reviews should be developmental and supported by institutional resources for professional development or a change in career direction (p.11). The AAUP also suggests that if a formal development plan is used instead of posttenure review, the faculty and institution should mutually create the plan. The AAUP seems to support the separation of evaluation and development. It makes sense that a formal system of posttenure review that has strong consequences for nonperformance not be tied to a professional development plan. Thus, faculty could plan high achievement goals with less fear of repercussion if they do not achieve those high goals. As for faculty that are tenured, the continuous review through a formal evaluation and faculty development planning systems could be a constructive way to maintain the vitality of senior professors in a rapidly changing environment (Rice, 1996). It should be a time for feedback and acknowledgement from colleagues, supervisors, and others in a profession that is usually very private. Once a faculty member has achieved tenure and been promoted, fewer regular opportunities may occur for self-analysis. These processes of reviewing senior faculty have "the potential for supporting resilient careers and the adaptability of faculty for what should be the capstone of their professional lives" (p.31). Senior professors are not the only faculty who made need posttenure review and development, however. Relatively younger tenured faculty occasionally may not be interested in research, intellectual contributions, and, in general, changing their professional environment to help improve their performance and the institution-which may be one of the reasons that posttenure review policies are becoming more popular today in different types of institutions (Magner, 1996). Some of the impetus has come from state legislators, board of trustees, and colleges and universities themselves. A common theme in many of the articles, reports, and statements about posttenure review is the importance, when assessing practices of evaluation, of determining a program's outcomes and effectiveness in promoting faculty development and productivity (Licata and Morreale, 1997; Neal, 1988). Clearly, a need exists to look further at the development of responsible and effective faculty evaluation and development systems that consider enhancing the growth of the faculty member (Rifkin, 1995). References available on request. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
