To articulate the criteria and procedures for Post-tenure Review in the Department of History.
Tenured faculty in the Department of History
In accordance with Board of Regents requirements (II.C.8), Article 7 Section 4 of the Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations, and the University Policy on Post-tenure Review, the Department of History, hereafter referred to as the History Department or the Department, has adopted these expectations and procedures for conducting Post-tenure Review. Post-tenure Review is a process for periodic peer evaluation of faculty performance that provides an opportunity for a long-term assessment of a faculty member’s accomplishments and future directions in the areas of teaching/advising, scholarship, and service.
Post-tenure Review must be conducted in a manner that respects the rights of faculty members involved, including academic freedom, tenure, and due process. In addition, all those involved in the evaluation process must recognize that it is a confidential personnel matter and take appropriate steps to protect confidentiality.
Period for Review
Post-tenure Review is conducted on a seven-year cycle and covers the seven-year period leading up to the review. It covers and is based on: the six prior annual evaluation letters from the Chair to the faculty member; the faculty member’s activities since the last annual evaluation; and documentation of any appeals by the faculty member. The cycle is restarted if a faculty member is evaluated for promotion or is awarded a distinguished professorship. Some years may be excluded from the cycle in accordance with the University policy, and the review may be postponed if the faculty member is on leave during the year of review. The Chair of the History Department shall notify faculty members it has scheduled for post-tenure review no later than March 15th in the spring semester preceding the academic year of review.
All tenured faculty members must meet academic responsibilities in the areas of teaching/advising, scholarship, and service. Unless otherwise specified by the job description or differential allocation of effort, the ordinary allocation of effort is 40% teaching/advising, 40% scholarship, and 20% service. Post-tenure review criteria shall be consistent with criteria for annual evaluation listed in the Department’s Faculty Evaluation Plan (FEP), which are part of the Department’s By-laws. If the Department revises its FEP, its post-tenure criteria will incorporate those revisions.
The Department of History has defined its standards and expectations for teaching/advising, scholarship, and service in its annual evaluation procedures. The expectations for post-tenure review are consistent with these standards, with overall productivity commensurate to the seven-year period under review.
Criteria for Meeting Expectations in Teaching/Advising
The faculty member’s record must demonstrate continued effectiveness and growth as a teacher, as reflected in such factors as mastery of the subject matter, strong classroom teaching skills, an ongoing commitment to student learning, and active involvement in providing advice and support for students outside the classroom. The candidate’s teaching should reflect knowledge of his/her field, and show that s/he is effective in encouraging students’ interest, helping them to think critically and to apply their knowledge, pointing them toward the broader implications of their study, and generally encouraging their development as perceptive readers and articulate writers. The record must also give indication of responsible fulfillment of all duties associated with teaching, including prompt and regular holding of class sessions and office hours, timely and sufficient grading and comments on assignments, acceptable and fair expectations and criteria for student work (as judged by standards in the discipline), adequate class preparation and effective use of class time, reflection about pedagogy and active engagement in advising students.
Additionally, for those at the rank of full professor or above, the record must reflect mastery of the subject matter as well as continued success in the classroom.
Criteria for Meeting Expectations in Research
Tenure is granted to faculty members with the expectation that they will continue to be active scholars. The record must demonstrate an established scholarly career, as reflected in such factors as a substantial and ongoing pattern of research and publication and other evidence of an active and productive scholarly career.
"Scholarship" in the History Department includes the following activities, which have varying degrees of importance:
• Publication of a book (monograph, edited text, research-based textbook, or edited collection, whether in print or online);
• Publication of articles in refereed journals or invited collections;
• Presentations at scholarly conferences and invited presentations, including keynote speeches or invitations to present, leading toward publication;
• Manuscripts submitted for publication; research that is completed and ready for publication.
• Professional honors and awards; journal editorships.
Criteria for Meeting Expectations in Service
The record should indicate significant participation in activities necessary to the successful functioning of the Department, College, and/or University, including significant service on committees and participation at Departmental meetings. In addition, a record of substantial contributions to the larger university community, the profession, or the discipline at the local, regional, national, or international level (e.g. memberships on committees or task forces, memberships of editorial or advisory boards, student recruitment, administration, reviewing grant applications, judging academic awards competitions, offices in professional organizations, conducting ad hoc workshops, fund raising, organizing conferences or lectures, etc.) is expected. A record demonstrating leadership at the Department, College, University, or professional level indicates meritorious service beyond minimum expectations.
Relation to the Annual Evaluation
The Post-tenure Review shall be conducted by the History Department’s Post-tenure Review Committee (PRC), excluding the department Chair, pursuant to the Department’s annual Faculty Evaluation Policy. Post-tenure Review and annual evaluation are therefore parts of a single process.
For faculty members under Post-tenure Review, that review is merged into the annual evaluation process for that year. Each faculty member subject to Post-tenure Review shall also produce an annual evaluation report for the Faculty Executive Board (FEB); the FEB shall produce annual evaluation scores for such faculty members in respect of Teaching/advising, Research and Service in accordance with the History Department’s By-laws, such scores not being part of the Post-tenure Review. The PRC and FEB shall meet and confer to ensure that the PRC’s evaluations of faculty members are consistent with those of the FEB.
The faculty member shall provide both of his or her units with copies of that faculty member’s Statement section of the Post-tenure Review File (reflecting the representative effort in each unit), and a current curriculum vitae. The review shall go forward with each unit’s Post-tenure Review Committee preparing a separate evaluation and forwarding considerations by each Chair and/or Director to the Dean. In the case of a jointly-appointed faculty and unclassified academic staff member, the primary unit is responsible for the administrative protocols of engaging the secondary unit in the solicitation and collection of feedback relative to the evaluation of performance expectations in the secondary unit.
Post-tenure Review Committee
The History Department’s Post-tenure Review Committee (PRC) shall consist of three members, not including the Department Chair. Its members shall be drawn from the FEB, elected by the Department as provided in the Department’s By-laws. Only tenured faculty may serve on the PRC. If all the elected members of the FEB do not hold the required ranks to serve on the PRC in respect of the cases under review, those ineligible to the PRC shall be replaced by alternates of the appropriate rank identified during the election of the FEB (in the order of the number of votes cast for each candidate). The History Department’s most recent vote on membership of the FEB shall be preserved and shall constitute an election of alternates to fill the place(s) of any PRC member(s) who withdraw(s) or is (or are) disqualified based on a conflict of interest or ineligibility. At least one member of the PRC (excluding the department Chair) must hold the rank of full professor and a full professor must chair the PRC. The department Chair may sit in during PRC meetings and deliberate but may not vote on Post-tenure Review determinations.
No person may serve on the PRC in a year in which any of the following is undergoing Post-tenure Review: (1) the person himself or herself; (2) his or her spouse or partner; (3) a faculty member with whom the person is engaged in collaborative research. A PRC member who believes that there may be a conflict of interest should withdraw from the PRC. If a faculty member who is undergoing Post-tenure Review believes that a PRC member has a conflict of interest, the faculty member may object to the inclusion of that person on the PRC. If that person declines to withdraw, the remaining PRC members shall consider the basis for the alleged conflict and decide the question of eligibility.
Preparation of the Post-tenure Review File
Post-tenure Review shall be conducted on the basis of a faculty member’s file that summarizes his or her teaching/advising, scholarship, and service. In contrast to evaluation for promotion and tenure, copies of publications, original student evaluations and outside reviews of scholarship are not required and should not be submitted.
The faculty member under review shall provide a brief narrative statement of his or her accomplishments in teaching/advising, scholarship, and service during the review period as they relate to his or her long-term career path and goals. In addition, the faculty member shall submit a current curriculum vitae and a list of any additional activities not covered on the curriculum vitae. The Chair shall furnish copies of the faculty member’s annual evaluation letters and any appeal documentation by the faculty member for the six years during the review period. The PRC shall rely on the evaluations contained in these letters.
Post-tenure Review: the Evaluation
For Post-tenure Review, the PRC shall review the faculty member’s file; the PRC shall evaluate achievements in the areas of teaching/advising, scholarship, and service and provide a comprehensive evaluation of the faculty member’s overall performance. Applying the expectations defined in the Department’s By-laws, the PRC shall consider only the faculty member’s overall performance and shall evaluate whether it (1) exceeds expectations, (2) meets expectations, or (3) fails to meet expectations. In making its evaluation, the PRC shall bear in mind that faculty members have differing responsibilities and make different kinds of contributions to the mission of the Department, the College, and the University; that a faculty member’s activities vary over time according to his or her strengths, interests, and career path; and that innovative work may take time to reach fruition and may sometimes fail.
The PRC shall prepare a written report summarizing its evaluation of each faculty member under review. The report shall provide a narrative description of the faculty member’s activities, an explanation of the PRC’s evaluation, and recommendations or suggestions for acknowledgement of contributions and the future development of the faculty member. The PRC shall provide a copy of the evaluation to the faculty member, who may submit a written response for inclusion in the Post-tenure Review file before it is forwarded to the Chair. The Department shall retain records of the PRC’s deliberations.
The Post-tenure Review evaluation shall be considered as part of the annual Faculty Evaluation Policy and the Chair shall discuss the Post-tenure Review evaluation with the faculty member as part of that annual process. Any such discussion should concentrate on the future professional development of the faculty member with an aim of enhancing meritorious work and improving less satisfactory performance, including adoption of a performance improvement plan if necessary. Any action on the Post-tenure Review is within the scope of the Faculty Evaluation Policy and must be taken under that policy.
Consideration of the Evaluation by the Chair
The PRC shall copy its evaluation (along with any response by the faculty member) to the Chair. If the Chair agrees or disagrees with the evaluation, s/he shall report that agreement or disagreement, with reasons, in writing to the faculty member; place a copy in his or her Post-tenure Review file; and send a copy to the PRC. The Chair may ask the PRC to provide additional information or reconsider its evaluation. If the Chair disagrees with a positive evaluation by the PRC, the faculty member may submit a written response which shall be included in his or her file. The Chair shall forward the file to the Dean of the College. Post-tenure Review files are due in the College Dean’s Office by no later than noon, on the second Friday of March.
Consideration by the Dean
The faculty member’s Post-tenure Review file, including the PRC’s evaluation, the Chair’s response, and any response by the faculty member, shall be forwarded to the Dean. The Dean shall consider the PRC’s evaluation, and express his or her agreement or disagreement in the same manner as the Chair. If the Dean agrees with the PRC’s evaluation, s/he shall indicate that agreement in writing to the faculty member, with a copy for the faculty member’s file and the PRC. If the Dean disagrees with the PRC’s evaluation, he or she shall explain the reasons for any disagreement in writing, with a copy to the faculty member, the PRC and the Chair. The Dean may ask the PRC to provide additional information or reconsider its evaluation. If the Dean disagrees with a positive evaluation by the PRC, the faculty member may submit a written response, which shall remain part of his/her file. The Dean shall forward a summary of Post-tenure Review evaluations and copies of the Post-tenure Review files to the Provost, ultimately to be placed in the faculty member’s personnel file.
Following the completion of the review, if a disagreement between the PRC, the Chair or the Dean cannot be resolved or if the faculty member wishes to appeal an evaluation of “fails to meet expectations” in the overall evaluation, the matter shall be handled as an appeal under the History Department’s annual Faculty Evaluation Policy.
Report to the Provost
The Dean shall provide a summary of the results of Post-tenure Reviews in the Department and copies of the Post-tenure Review files to the Provost. The Post-tenure Review file shall be placed in the faculty member’s personnel file.
Department of History
University of Kansas 1445 Jayhawk Blvd., Room 3650 Lawrence, KS 66045 email@example.com
The faculty in the Department of History
Approved on: 18 November 2015
Effective on: 18 November 2015
Annual (as needed)
Board of Regents requirements (II.C.8, or page 63)
Article 7 Section 4 of the Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations
University's Post-tenure Review Policy
College of Liberal Arts & Sciences Post-tenure Review Policy
Faculty Member Statement
Unit Committee Report
Chair of Director Evaluation Summary
Dean Evaluation Summary
Post-tenure Review, seven-year review, faculty evaluation, PTR, performance, HIST
Review, Approval and Change History:
Approved by vote of the faculty in the Department of History on 18 November 2015.
Date of Faculty Approval: October 26, 2016
The Department of History, having adopted a new Faculty Evaluation Plan in October 2016, does not intend to penalize faculty members for pursuing the goals for research, teaching, and service set forth at the beginning of the 2016 calendar year. Accordingly, the Department of History directs the chair and the members of the Faculty Executive Board to hold faculty harmless for activities undertaken in pursuit of these goals in 2016. In particular, the chair and the Faculty Executive Board are directed to take into account the 2013 version of the Faculty Evaluation Plan when evaluating teaching in 2016, ensuring that faculty members also receive credit for teaching the service courses specified in Appendix B of that document.