Beyond annual administrative review, Board of Regents policy requires that each institution establish procedures to formally evaluate tenured faculty each five years; to provide recommendations recognizing and supporting effective performance; and to provide development strategies for areas of inadequate performance. Board of Regents policy further states: The purpose of post-tenure review "will be to examine, recognize and enhance the performance of tenured faculty members . . . focus on identifying opportunities for faculty that will enable them to reach their full potential in service to their institution . . . and to ensure that their performance meets the expectations and needs of the institution . . ." (104.0201).

The purpose of post-tenure review at the University of West Georgia is to review faculty every five years after the award of tenure and to yield accurate and useful information that will support high achievement among faculty and promote their continued professional development. Directed toward career development, this review is designed to provide a longer term perspective than is usually provided by the annual review. Post-tenure review provides both retrospective and prospective reviews of performance, taking into account that a faculty member probably will have different emphases at different points in his or her career. It is to be directed toward career development and to provide the perspective of multiple years of accomplishments and plans for development (104.0202).

The English department affirms that post-tenure review should encourage and support active, collegial engagement with the department and the university and a continuing high level of achievement commensurate with the faculty member's current rank.

Criteria for Post-Tenure Review

Criteria to be utilized in conducting post-tenure review shall be fair and reasonable expectations consistent with the criteria and standards used in other reviews of faculty related to teaching, professional growth and development, and service to the institution. The weights or percentages given to different areas may differ according to the faculty member's professional role, rank and established goals, and any applicable college or university-wide policies.  The criteria must be sufficiently flexible to accommodate faculty with differing responsibilities, to recognize that faculty members may contribute in different ways to the institution's mission over time, and to consider the cumulative impact of the faculty member's career as well as his or her performance during the previous five years.  Criteria governing post-tenure review must not infringe on the accepted standards of academic freedom of faculty (104.0204).

  • Teaching

    Evidence of excellence and active engagement in teaching at all levels as indicated by the sources listed in section 103.0302, D, 1 of the Faculty Handbook. These include such things as
    1. Teaching effectiveness as shown by student and peer evaluations.
    2. Successful direction of individual student work (independent projects, theses, etc.).
    3. Making research in his or her scholarly field an integral part of the classroom experience.
    4. Learning about or developing effective curricula and/or instructional methods.
    5. Scholarship related to teaching.

  • Service to the Institute

    Evidence of excellence and active engagement in service to the department and university as indicated by the sources listed in section 103.0302, D, 2 of the Faculty Handbook. These include such things as
    1. Active participation and successful collegial service on both departmental and campus-wide committees.
    2. Productive mentoring of younger colleagues in the department.
    3. Effective advisement of students and/or student organizations

  • Professional Growth

    Evidence of excellence and active engagement in professional development as indicated by the sources listed in section 103.0302, D, 3 of the Faculty Handbook. These include such things as
    1. Recent publications of books, creative works, or scholarly articles.
    2. Leadership in professional societies.
    3. Active participation in scholarly conferences through presenting papers or moderating panels.
    4. Editing journals or other scholarly works.
    Receipt of competitively awarded grants or fellowships, or admission to seminars related to one's discipline, scholarship, and/or creative activities.
    5. Exhibitions, readings, or other scholarly presentations.

  • Documentation

    Faculty members who receive ratings of "meets expectations" or "exceeds expectations" in ALL sections of ALL their annual reviews for the time under review (past five years) will be permitted to produce the Basic Portfolio.

    The Basic Portfolio includes:

    1. a cover letter containing a statement by the faculty member detailing his or her accomplishments for the review period and goals for the next;
    2. a current CV;
    3. copies of the annual performance reviews of the faculty member by the chair;
    4. student evals from the past two years.

    If a faculty member has NOT met or exceeded expectations in any area (Service, Teaching, Scholarship) during the review period, that faculty member would be required to submit additional materials for the problematic area in their portfolio. For example, sub-standard teaching would require a teaching portfolio (the format for which needs to be linked online), while a negative report on scholarship would require the additional compilation of materials from the annual performance reviews during the time period under scrutiny. Updated: Monday, August 10, 2015