D. Post-Tenure Review (PTR) Process
When tenure is granted, there is an expectation of continued professional growth and productivity in the areas of teaching, professional development/research/creative work, and service. The purposes of PTR are: (1) to facilitate continued Faculty development, consistent with academic needs and goals of the College and with the most effective use of institutional resources; and (2) to ensure professional accountability by a regular, comprehensive evaluation of every tenured Faculty member’s performance.
Five years from the granting of tenure or most recent promotion, each tenured Faculty member will complete a self-evaluation reflecting upon their professional activities and accomplishments. While in normal circumstances reviews will occur every five years, when it is in the best interest of the individual and the College, the provost, upon petition of the individual with agreement from the Chair, may delay post-tenure review. A promotion will re-start the PTR clock. Faculty on sabbatical or leave of absence during the scheduled year of review shall participate in the post-tenure review process upon their return to campus. The typical five-year review will, additionally, explicitly identify goals for future professional activities and/or development. It is the intent that this process be reflective, developmental, supported by institutional resources, and flexible enough to respect the diverse expectations of different disciplines and changing expectations at different stages of Faculty careers.
Subsequent post-tenure reviews will occur at regular five-year intervals. Oversight for this formative process lies with the Professional Standards Committee.
The professional development component will anticipate the next five years of professional activity. Such plan should not only identify professional goals and objectives but also, as appropriate, specify the resources needed to achieve the identified professional outcomes. It is expected that the self-evaluation and goal planning will be analytic, comprehensive, thoughtful, and evidence-based.
Subsequent post-tenure reviews will occur at regular five-year intervals. Oversight for this formative process lies with the Professional Standards Committee.
The time frame for the Post-Tenure Review Process is as follows:
March 1: The Professional Standards Committee notifies Faculty members. This expectation will also be stated in the individual’s contract for the subsequent academic year.
October 1: Faculty members submit self-evaluation to their Division Chair and the Provost’s Office.
November 15: Division Chairs submit their response to Faculty Member and Provost’s Office.
January 15: Professional Standards Committee submits response to Faculty member, Division Chair, and Provost.
March 15: Provost submits response to Faculty member, Division Chair, and PSC.
In completing the self-evaluation component of the post tenure review, Faculty will consider and reflect upon their performance for each of the contracted areas of professional responsibility: teaching, institutional service, and professional development. The personal development component will anticipate the next five years of professional activity. Such plan should not only identify personal goals and objectives but also, as appropriate, specify the resources needed to achieve the identified professional outcomes. It is expected that the self-evaluation and goal planning will be analytic, comprehensive, thoughtful, and evidence based.
The tenured Faculty member will submit to the Division Chair and Provost a portfolio documenting performance. The portfolio must include the following:
1. a current curriculum vitae highlighting accomplishments covered by the review period;
2. a narrative statement of no more than 5 pages prepared by the Faculty member detailing his or her accomplishments in Teaching, Professional Development and Scholarly Activity, and
Institutional/Community Service, as described further below;
3. evidence of accomplishments in the contracted areas of faculty responsibility covered by the review period, and
4. any other documentation deemed relevant by the Faculty member under review.
The Narrative Statement
The narrative statement provides the opportunity for Faculty members to describe their activities and achievements in the context of their overall goals as a Faculty member at Keuka College. The PTR process recognizes that there is more than one career profile of a successful Faculty member. Over the course of their career at the College, it is likely that engaged Faculty members will emphasize different interests; for example, they may explore and develop new scholarly or creative passions, focus on expanding their teaching skills and knowledge base, or transition to assuming leadership roles within the College or in their professional organizations. Thus, the narrative is the place for Faculty members to reflect on their career trajectory and to identify and explain any changes in career direction, as well as to identify future long-term goals.
Narrative Guidelines:
The narrative should document and highlight the significance of the Faculty member’s contributions and accomplishments in each of the three areas.
For Teaching, the narrative should provide a multidimensional profile of the faculty member’s teaching effectiveness. The analysis should include an analysis of SEI data (trends/patterns, strengths, possible issues), and discussion of innovations, courses, curricula, or educational resources you have developed, implemented and evaluated. A Faculty member may wish to discuss teaching different types of courses (major courses, required courses, electives), size of classes, student levels (lower- and upper-division undergraduate, graduate), and courses outside of one’s discipline. Discussion of efforts to augment and maintain expertise in your field or to build expertise in a new field, as well as efforts to improve teaching (e.g., participating in seminars and workshops, reading journals on teaching, reviewing new teaching materials for possible application) is valuable. Peer review of teaching, for example, through peer observation of in-class teaching, is strongly encouraged, for it provides a valuable source of information about an instructor’s effectiveness in conveying course content and objectives, engaging students in learning activities, and delivering well-organized presentations and lessons. Peer review of course instructional materials is also strongly encouraged.
For discussion of academic advising, provide a description and data about your typical advising load, comment on your performance as an adviser and mentor to students, in particular with Field Period or practicums, as applicable to your role at the College. Optional documentation can include honors or awards received for advising, attendance at adviser development seminars or conferences, and letters of appreciation or acknowledgment of contributions from students or alumni. Optional documentation may also include a brief narrative of the support provided to students beyond the typical expectations of advisement.
For Professional Development and Scholarly Activity, Faculty members should use the narrative statement to emphasize their major achievements and describe them more meaningfully than to simply reiterate what is listed in their CV. Documentation of professional development should include a listing of pertinent professional activities during the evaluation period. Reference to these activities should indicate how the information learned or participation was utilized in the role as an academician. Documentation of scholarly activity should explicitly address the standards and expectations developed by the appropriate division, in accordance with the Boyer model, and adhere to the standards and expectations of the Faculty member’s respective field. Accordingly, Faculty members should identify explicitly how their scholarly activity meets the standards of the Scholarship of Discovery, the Scholarship of Application, the Scholarship of Integration, or the Scholarship of Teaching. For work-in-progress, Faculty members should identify the current status of the project and anticipated timeline for completion. Faculty members need to keep in mind that the members of the Professional Standards Committee who review the post-tenure portfolio may not be in their field; therefore, it is particularly important to explain the issues, approach, and impact or outcome of their professional development activities and scholarly/creative work using language that will be understandable to a general academic audience.
For Institutional/Community Service, describe the key focus or foci of your service activities. The value of the institutional/community service can be best documented by specifically describing contributions made in each area. In particular, Faculty should note the level of engagement in their service work.
The entire narrative statement should be no longer than 5 pages, single-spaced, and can be written in the first person. Title the Narrative Statement with your name, current Faculty rank, and academic division. For ease of reading, divide your statement into sections with headings.
1. Introduction: Provide the following information.
● Describe the goals that have guided your work. For example: developing a robust academic program, expanding your knowledge base beyond your initial areas of expertise, integrating teaching with clinical care, or addressing a research problem.
● Describe the expectations for you when you were hired and the expectations now. Describe how you have fulfilled those expectations.
● Identify themes that link your activities into a coherent whole. Help reviewers understand why you undertook particular projects to work toward your stated goals.
● Speak to resources that allowed you to meet your goals (i.e., sabbatical, course release for scholarship, grant money) and what barriers limited or prevented you from meeting your goals or performing at necessary requirements (i.e. large class size, unforeseen circumstances).
2. Body: Address the three areas of professional responsibility.
3. Conclusion: Summarize your major accomplishments. Refer to the goals you defined in the introduction. Comment on the direction of your career and what you hope to accomplish in the future.
The Division Chair’s response will identify if the Faculty member meets the evaluation criteria, does not meet the evaluation criteria, or exceeds the evaluation criteria. The Faculty member has the right to respond to the Division Chair in writing; this statement should be sent to the Division Chair, the PSC, and the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs’ Office to be added to the evaluation file by the end of ten (10) business days. Submitting a response within this timeframe will ensure it is included with the post-tenure review materials as the current evaluation process moves forward.
The Professional Standards Committee will complete an independent assessment of the post-tenure review file, and their response will identify if the Faculty member meets the evaluation criteria, does not meet the evaluation criteria, or exceeds the evaluation criteria. As appropriate, the PSC will also include a recommendation regarding support for the identified professional goals of the individual. If the Committee’s overall determination is in disagreement with the Chair, consultation must take place between the PSC and the Chair. The PSC must initiate the consultation with the Chair prior to the submission of the PSC recommendation. The Faculty member has the right to respond to the Professional Standards Committee in writing; this statement should be sent to the Division Chair, the PSC, and the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs’ Office to be added to the evaluation file by the end of ten (10) business days. Submitting a response within this timeframe will ensure it is included with the post-tenure review materials as the current evaluation process moves forward.
The Provost will independently review the post-tenure review file to determine if the Faculty member meets the evaluation criteria, does not meet the evaluation criteria, or exceeds the evaluation criteria. The Provost’s response will include a determination of the resources that will be made available to facilitate and support the individual in achievement of their identified professional goals. If the Provost’s overall determination is in disagreement with the Professional Standards Committee and/or the Chair, consultation must take place between the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, the PSC, and/or the Chair. The Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs must initiate this consultation prior to the submission of a recommendation to the President. The Faculty member has the right to respond to the Provost in writing; this statement should be sent to the Division Chair, the PSC, and the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs’ Office to be added to the evaluation file by the end of ten (10) business days. Submitting a response within this timeframe will ensure it is included with the post-tenure review materials as the current evaluation process moves forward.
In addition to the regular five-year review, Faculty members may undergo either a triggered or extensive review, as described below. Faculty members shall be informed in writing of the results of the evaluation by the division chair, PSC, Provost, and President at each stage of review. Copies of these evaluations will be kept by the Provost.
Evaluation Criteria
For the Post-Tenure Review, Faculty will be evaluated according to the following standards:
Teaching and one other major category of evaluation must be rated at least Excellent and the remaining category of evaluation must be rated at least Effective.
A Faculty member MEETS the evaluation criteria when Teaching and one other pillar are rated at least Excellent, and the remaining evaluation category is rated at least Effective. A rating of “EXCEEDS the evaluation criteria” is met all pillars are rated at least Excellent. A rating of “does not meet the evaluation criteria” is given when (a) Teaching is not rated as excellent, even if the other two pillars are rated as Excellent or better, or (b) only Teaching is rated at least excellent.
In instances where areas of deficiency are noted and further action is required, the Division Chair is responsible, in consultation with the Faculty member and Provost, for establishing a Post-Tenure Development Plan (PTDP) directly related to the findings of the post-tenure review and identifying appropriate resources for completion of the PTDP. If a PTDP is required for a Division Chair, it will be developed by the Provost in consultation with the Chair.
The Post-Tenure Development Plan (PTDP)
The Post-Tenure Development Plan (PTDP) will:
1. specify goals or outcomes that are required for the Faculty member to overcome identified deficiencies;
2. outline specific activities that will be undertaken to achieve the goals or outcomes;
3. set appropriate times within which the goals or outcomes will be accomplished (which should not exceed three years);
4. indicate the criteria by which progress will be monitored; and
5. include a plan to monitor progress and reassess the plan annually.
The Provost will be responsible for financial arrangements associated with the PTDP to support the Faculty member in addressing concerns.
At the end of the PTDP, the individual shall be reviewed by the Professional Standards Committee. Results of the review will be communicated in writing to the Faculty member, Division Chair, and the Provost.
1. Upon satisfactory completion of the PTDP, the individual shall continue with five-year reviews, such time commencing with the next academic year after completion of the program.
2. If completion of the PTDP is deemed unsatisfactory by the PSC, consultation must take place between the Division Chair, the PSC, and the Provost. The Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs will then make a recommendation to the President of the College, with copies to the Faculty member, the Division Chair, and the Professional Standards Committee.
3. All records of reviews will be retained by the Provost’s office.
A Faculty member who disagrees with the results of a Post-Tenure Review, a PTDP, or any subsequent actions resulting from the review process has the right to appeal, as outlined below.
Triggered Post-Tenure Review
A Triggered Post-Tenure Review may be instituted out of sequence from the normal five-year cycle and is required when a Faculty member demonstrates below average performance that continues for more than two semesters and that must be addressed in order to maintain program quality. Teaching is the major evaluative category because it is the primary focus at Keuka College. Persistent low overall instructor scores on Student Evaluation of Instruction in particular may trigger a review. However, because SEI scores are only one measure of teaching effectiveness, other data sources, such as peer observation of teaching and examination of course instructional materials, should be included in the review.
The goal of the Triggered Review is to identify the causes of the unsatisfactory performance and to create and implement a written Post Tenure Development Plan (PTDP) for the Faculty member to address area(s) of concern.
Should the Chair seek to initiate a triggered review, the Chair will first share a written statement of concern(s) with the faculty member, the Professional Standards Committee and the Provost. The Faculty member will have ten days to submit a written response to the Chair, PSC, and the Provost; in this response, the Faculty member may address the concerns and/or identify extenuating or personal circumstances, including consultation with Human Resources, as applicable. Following receipt of the Faculty member’s response, the Chair, PSC, and Provost will meet within ten days to discuss the request for a triggered review; if all parties agree a triggered review is warranted, the Provost will notify the Faculty member that a Triggered Review will go forward. (A majority vote within the PSC will be cast by the PSC Chair.) If all three parties do not agree, a Triggered Review will not take place. Formal documentation indicating the chair’s request for a triggered review, the faculty member’s response, and the determination that the review was not warranted, are to be added to the faculty member’s file in the Provost’s office.
A Faculty member who disagrees with the results of a Triggered Post-Tenure Review or any subsequent actions resulting from the review process has the right to appeal, as outlined below.
Extensive Review
An Extensive Review may be instituted no less than 12 months subsequent to, and no more than four years after, communication of the Triggered Review plan to the Faculty member, if the area(s) of concern remain unaddressed. An Extensive Review requires the Faculty member to prepare a complete dossier consisting of all SEIs for the period since last PTR, a self- evaluation, and the Chair’s evaluation. The dossier is considered by the PSC, Provost and President with the following criteria:
Evaluation Criteria: Teaching and one other major category of evaluation must be rated at least Excellent and the remaining category of evaluation must be rated at least Effective.
Failure to satisfy these criteria may result in sanctions. The Provost can recommend appropriate sanctions to be applied to the Faculty member by the President in such cases where the Faculty member is judged by the Chair, PSC, and Provost to not have attained the criteria of Extensive Review. Possible sanctions include reassignment of duties, loss of eligibility for sabbaticals or for campus travel funds, salary freeze, salary reduction, demotion of rank, revocation of tenure, and/or dismissal.
If the Provost’s recommendation for sanctions is in disagreement with the PSC and/or the Chair, consultation must take place between the Provost/VPAA, the PSC, and/or the Chair. The Provost must initiate this consultation prior to the submission of a recommendation to the President.
Sanctioned Faculty may avail themselves of the outlined grievance hearing procedures available through the Faculty Liaison Committee in conjunction with the office of Human Resources as outlined in Section A, V, C. (7).
Post-Tenure Review Appeals
Individual Faculty member(s) shall have an avenue for appeal of decisions made from post- tenure review, or for disagreement with a Post Tenure Development Plan (PTDP), or any subsequent actions resulting from the evaluation process.
1. Decisions by Division Chair may be appealed to the Provost within 10 days of written notification of a decision, action, or finalization of a PTDP.
2. Decisions by the Provost may be appealed within 10 days of written notification. The Provost shall refer the appeal to a Hearing Committee as outlined in Section A, V, C. (7). The Provost shall inform the President that an appeal has been submitted and is under review. The findings and recommendations of the Hearing Committee shall be made to the President. The appellant will be notified of the President’s decision with copies to the Division Chair and the Provost.
Review of the Post-Tenure Review Process
The Professional Standards Committee should periodically evaluate the effectiveness of the Post Tenure Review Process and make any recommendations for revisions that it deems appropriate.