Post-Tenure Review (PTR)
We would like to complete the PTR process as efficiently, and for the participants, as meaningfully as possible. To that end, we are forming committees of (3) tenured members, naming one as convener, and requesting that the PTR portfolio be limited in length. Most of the (7) points of evaluation in 220.127.116.11 can be assembled easily. We ask that you limit the reflection section under # 5 in 18.104.22.168 to three pages. Depending on the length of your CV, we expect the portfolio to be no more than fifteen pages (not including course evaluations).
In the follow up procedure after the PTR committees meet, the convener of the committee will provide a (1) page executive summary with commendations and recommendations by June 15, 2012, to the dean or associate dean of the College. The executive summary will be placed in the file of the faculty member reviewed, and a copy will be sent to the VPAA. Note procedures for the setting of goals in the case of minor concerns (22.214.171.124.1) and in the case of significant concerns (126.96.36.199.2).
Although the Faculty Handbook requires that the portfolio be available for the committee by January 1, the College reserves the right to extend that date in order for appropriate classroom observations to take place. Thus, PTR candidates and committees will be notified in early October, and the process may continue through the academic year. The completed process with executive summary will be due at the end of the academic year in June. Attached you will find a guide for the convener and committee members to follow. Those being reviewed may find it helpful as well.
Please contact Debra Sequeira at email@example.com or x 2277 with any questions you may have regarding the PTR process.
Post-Tenure Review (PTR) Guide for Convener and Committee Members
Consider the following as a guide for your discussion and for the final executive summary.
As a teacher, is there evidence that the reviewee is:
As a scholar, is there evidence that the reviewee is:
Does the review confirm a commitment on the part of the reviewee to the mission of the university and the goals of his or her department?