Criteria for Comprehensive Performance Evaluations of Tenured Faculty Members

 

Post-Tenure Review Timeline

OP 32.31

Comprehensive Performance Evaluations of Tenured Faculty Members (Post-Tenure Review), is to be based on the professional responsibilities of the faculty member in teaching, research, service, and administration, when applicable, and includes peer review of the faculty member. It will be conducted no more often than once every year, but no less often than once every six years after the date the faculty member was granted tenure or received an academic promotion. The constitution of the peer review body and the precise form of the review shall be determined by the responsible academic unit in accordance with college or school guidelines and procedures agreed upon by a majority of the voting members of the faculty member’s academic unit, approved by the dean, and in effect at the time the faculty member is given notice of his or her upcoming review.

JULY-AUGUST:
The faculty member is notified that he/she will need to submit documentation for a Comprehensive Performance Evaluation (Post-Tenure Review).

SEPTEMBER – JANUARY:
Preparation of the dossier for the post-tenure review begins. Annual performance evaluations conducted for the period since the previous comprehensive performance review or promotion and/or tenure decision, will comprise the primary element in the review process. The faculty member may submit additional supporting documentation as he or she deems is relevant for the review.

EARLY JANUARY:
Post-Tenure dossiers will be due to the Office of the Dean in early January, in order to be available for the CASNR Promotion and Tenure Committee by February 1st.

FEBRUARY 1ST – MAY 1ST:
CASNR’s Promotion and Tenure committee meet to review the post-tenure dossiers.

AFTER MAY 1ST:
The Dean will review the Promotion and Tenure Committee’s votes and comments regarding the faculty who have been reviewed, and write a letter to the faculty member and department chair noting the outcome of the review. Please refer to OP 32.31 for specific information on what can be done if the outcome of the review is not positive.

 

---

 

I. INTRODUCTION

The mission of Texas Tech University and of the College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources encompasses three primary areas: teaching, research and creative activity, and professional service. All faculty members of the College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources are expected to participate and be productive in support of the mission through teaching, research and creative activity, professional service, and 
administration (when applicable). A faculty member should be fully cognizant of this threefold mission and most importantly of the fact that levels of performance in each of the three areas will be comprehensively evaluated on a periodic basis in accordance with OP 32.31. Because of the diversity of appointment status and time commitment in the College, it is virtually impossible to establish quantitative specifications that are applicable to each and every individual; rather the expectation is that each individual will clearly demonstrate competency in each of the evaluated areas in line with their specific appointment. Individuals should develop a clear understanding with 
their immediate administrator concerning the relative amount of time to devote to teaching, research and creative activity, professional service, or administration.

 

II. PROCEDURES

The Promotion and Tenure Committee for the College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources will constitute the peer review body for purposes of conducting comprehensive performance evaluations required under OP 32.31.

Comprehensive performance evaluations, for faculty members whose annual faculty evaluations are satisfactory, will be conducted after the completion of six years of service since the award of tenure or promotion, whichever event occurred most recently. Department chairs or other appropriate administrators may recommend, to the Dean, a review prior to the completion of six years if a faculty member receives two consecutive unsatisfactory annual performance reviews.

Notice of the approaching comprehensive performance evaluation must be given to the faculty member involved no later than September 1. The evaluation will begin no earlier than February 1 and end no later than May 1 of a given academic year.

The primary documentation for the comprehensive review process will be the individual annual performance reviews conducted under the terms of OP 32.32 for the period since the previous comprehensive performance review or promotion/tenure decision. In the College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, the annual performance review regularly includes evaluations of teaching, documentation of research productivity, and enumeration of service activities. The faculty member also is encouraged to submit a current vita in addition to the annual reviews. Other items, such as letters of recommendation from peers or industry representatives and former students, may be requested by the review committee, but should not be routinely submitted, unless specifically requested.

In cases where a member of the promotion and tenure committee is involved in the evaluation, either as the individual being evaluated or as an administrator involved with the individual being evaluated, that member will be excluded from discussion and voting participation in committee deliberations.

Implementation of the evaluation sequence will be in strict order of seniority for those individuals already eligible for evaluation by virtue of having been tenured/promoted for more than six years as of September 1, 1999. Approximately one-fourth of these individuals will be evaluated each year over the four-year initial implementation period. Remaining individuals will be evaluated in the year they first become eligible or as necessary by virtue of administrative recommendation.

 

III. CRITERIA

Criteria for comprehensive performance evaluations of tenured faculty members and faculty members who receive an academic promotion under this policy are:

1. Teaching: Demonstrated quality performance as an undergraduate and/or graduate instructor. Assessment is based on level of courses taught, teaching load, course-teacher evaluations, student academic advising, advising of student organizations, coaching of students for competitive events, leadership and other contributions to teaching activities of the Department, College and University. Considerations of the number of graduate students directed and their completion record should be commensurate with the teaching, research, service, and administrative appointment; and standards in the discipline.
2. Research and Creative Activity: Demonstrated independent and interdisciplinary research and creative activities, which are documented by refereed publications, juried presentations, or other professionally prestigious outlets. Other evidence of reputation and recognition for scholarly competence should be documented with evidence such as invitations to contribute to national and/or international symposia, invited book reviews, invited authorship of review articles, consultantships, participation in national professional societies, and continued professional development.
3. Professional Service: Documentation of leadership responsibilities to the academic community and the professional community. Evidence to include committee assignments and participation in Department, College, and University programs and/or activities; and, continued involvement in professional public service through committee assignments, elected offices, international activities, or other appropriate service to the individual’s professional societies.
4. Administration (as appropriate): Documentation of effective and efficient administrative functioning. Provides appropriate leadership to the specific academic unit involved. Promotes the recognition and reputation of the Department, College, and University.

 

(Note: Appropriate items from the Faculty Workload Policy should be integrated into this documentation. OP 32.18)

Final Copy – Approved November, 1998