Post-Tenure Procedures in CAS

In accordance with stipulations in the Faculty Handbook regarding the process adopted for post-tenure review (5.5.5.4), we are providing you with a description of the protocol we have followed in CAS.

The Faculty Handbook stipulates that each department determines its own process for Post-Tenure Reviews. Although CAS has not adopted a uniform process, we have suggestions! Each department chair is required to report to the Dean the departmental process used. This will be accomplished either by referring to the process outlined below or reporting all departures from it.

The chair nominates members of the post-tenure review committee to the Dean early in autumn quarter. The Dean reviews committee membership taking into special consideration an equitable distribution of the burden of review and committee work. The committee includes the department chair, one tenured faculty from the department of the person being reviewed and one tenured faculty from outside the department. Before the members are nominated, the person being reviewed is notified of the proposed committee and has the right to request different members. If a department chair is being reviewed, the Dean or Dean's designee chairs the committee; in other cases, the department chair conducts the review. Thus, each committee has three members, including the chair.

Members of the committee review the portfolio of the person being reviewed and determine in consultation with that person which course will be evaluated for purposes of peer review of teaching. The IDC Workshop on peer review noted that visiting one class is the least effective method of peer review. Instead, choosing one course to review, including its syllabus, assignments, exams, and other course activities seems more useful. In addition to reviewing the course, the two faculty members on the committee will visit a class session of the course; one may choose to observe the other may visit to conduct brief focus groups with students (without the instructor present) to seek information about what the students find helpful and what might further their learning. Before any type of classroom visit occurs, the committee discusses with the person being reviewed particular issues or questions s/he would find useful to raise with the students as well as setting the focus for any observation of teaching.

At the final meeting of the committee, members discuss with the person being reviewed his/her Professional Development Plan, the results of the classroom visit(s), and the contents of the portfolio. The intention is for this discussion to be frank and collegial, with its primary aim being a mutual exploration of enhancing and improving our work as professors, scholars, and colleagues. Remember: this procedure is formative rather than summative. As noted in the Faculty Handbook, one result of this discussion may be a revision of the PDP. A draft summary of the meeting is circulated among all committee members to ensure the summary is accurate and comprehensive. The final summary and, if necessary, the revised PDP, is forwarded to the Dean for inclusion in the faculty member's personnel file, as the Faculty Handbook directs.

<< Back to Resources Homepage