Post-Tenure Review Program

The following Post-Tenure Review Program (PTR) was adopted by the faculty at the January 2001 Faculty Meeting. Further details for the PTR program may be found in the Faculty Development Handbook.

1. Getting Started

The Associate Dean of Curricular & Faculty Development, as the Program

Administrator, will annually notify eligible faculty members and their supervisors (department chairs, school directors, the Provost, or agreed-upon designees of the Provost). Eligible faculty will then decide, in consultation with their supervisors, when to participate within the following parameters. It is recommended that the first review occur two years before the faculty member is eligible for sabbatical

leave, except under special circumstances such as recent or anticipated consideration for promotion, unpaid leaves, or administrative duties. Faculty within five years of retirement from the University may choose not to participate in the review process. After the first review, the faculty member will engage in future reviews every five to seven years – to be determined by the faculty member in consultation with his or her supervisor. While the review program is

mandatory for all eligible faculty members, the five to seven year window gives the faculty member considerable flexibility in the timing of the review. Some faculty members may find it advantageous to link their review to their sabbaticals.

For example, if the faculty member takes his or her sabbaticals on the traditional seven-year cycle, every review could be done approximately two years before the sabbatical. The advantage of this timing is that the review process could also be used to produce a sabbatical proposal (due one year in advance). Other faculty, however, may elect to use the review process to help prepare for application for promotion.

2. Individual Review Process Phase One

• Preliminary meeting with supervisor

• When a faculty member knows that he or she will be participating in the post-tenure review process, and before a committee is selected, he or she should meet with his or her supervisor to discuss the general direction the process might take.

• Selection of Individual Review and Development Committee

• The Individual Review and Development Committee will include the faculty member and two invited faculty colleagues, selected from the full-time tenure-track faculty, at least one of whom must be tenured. When selecting the committee members, the faculty member should keep in mind the committee’s principal goal of helping the faculty member reflect on his or her professional growth and assisting in formulating a professional development plan.

• Colleagues who agree to serve on these committees will be performing important University service that will be recognized as a significant

contribution to the mission of the institution. While colleagues are strongly encouraged to serve on Review and Development Committees, the nature and intensity of the work suggest that faculty serve on no more than two such committees in any one academic year.

Phase Two: Review and Development Committee’s Work

The Committee, convened by the faculty member, will engage in a free discussion of professional development, guided by the faculty member’s own informal agenda. First, perhaps, the Committee would review the teaching, service and scholarship (taken to include both academic and artistic work) of the past several years under review. If she or he so desires, the faculty member may bring to the

IWU Faculty Handbook Chapter IV - 50

discussion student evaluations of teaching, course syllabi, and examples of scholarship—any or all of which would serve to help the Committee get the best sense of the faculty member’s recent professional life. Because the discussion will be free—that is, unfettered by the formal constraints of evaluation—it will also be frank: allowing the faculty member, and her or his committee colleagues, to be honest about strengths and weaknesses, progresses and impediments.

With the review accomplished, the Committee will turn to the future: what would the faculty member like to accomplish over the next several years and how can the academic community help realize this vision? During this phase of the discussion, the two invited Committee colleagues should both listen

sympathetically and respond critically to the faculty member’s ideas and plans and ‘brainstorm’ with him or her about the possible. Then members may assist in distilling the vision into a concrete ‘prospectus’ for the actual professional

development to follow: for instance a new course with new pedagogy; an article or research experiment or artistic creation or performance that tests new ground in its subject or interpretation; a reconsidered approach to University service that emphasizes quality by appealing to the faculty member’s individual gifts.

At some point during this process, the faculty member’s supervisor, if not already a member, should be invited to meet once with the committee to discuss the proposed professional development in light of the relevant discipline and the faculty member’s overall career path. If it appears that other programs or departments may be affected by the development plan, those program administrators should be invited to this meeting.

While it is expected that the faculty member will rely on the two other members of the Committee for assistance in formulating the developmental plan, she or he may opt to consult: other IWU faculty or staff members, faculty or staff at other academic institutions, representatives from the reviewee’s own professional organizations, or other such individuals. These additional consultants may have valuable and specific expertise in research, pedagogy, or technology, or

experience with projects similar to that under development, and so may aid at some stages in the process.

After these discussions, the faculty member will embody the results in a written development plan, to be read and signed by the other Committee members and the supervisor, indicating completion of the process. This plan should not restrict the faculty member from pursuing other professional development goals. For

example, opportunities may arise which lead a faculty member in an unanticipated direction.

Phase Three: Allocation of University Resources

The faculty member will convene the Committee a final time and invite the Associate Dean of Curricular & Faculty Development attend for an informal

review of the process and discussion of resource allocation.

At the conclusion of the Committee’s work, the faculty member will forward the Summary Form (See below for description) to the Associate Dean of Curricular &

Faculty Development, who will facilitate the allocation of resources.

At the completion of the review, each faculty member undergoing review will receive monetary or in-kind support equivalent of $5000 or a course release (see examples below) to complete his or her Development Plan. The resource allocation would occur during the first year or two after completing the review.

Since the purpose of the PTR Program is to provide long-term review and development opportunities for all tenured faculty members, every person completing a review in any given year should receive equal amounts of support (monetary or in-kind). The primary source of funding for the PTR Program will be a designated Post-Tenure Review Development budgetary line, one sufficient to fund meaningful professional development activities for all faculty members completing their professional development plans. This level of funding will support professional development in a variety of ways, for example:

• Fund a course release

• Purchase equipment and materials that would not be available through normal university sources

• Pay expenses for travel for research or course development purposes

• A stipend to support an intensive research or course development effort During the year(s) a faculty member receives PTR resources, any application he or she submits for institutional support through programs administered by FDC will receive a lower priority if FDC determines that the award would support essentially the same development activities.

3. Disposition of Documents

Each Review and Development process will generate three documents:

• The Development Plan, signed by the other members of the Committee and the faculty member’s immediate supervisor, to be kept in the possession of the faculty member.

• A two-page Summary Form, which will include an abstract of the Development Plan, resource allocation preference, and the signatures of committee and supervisor. The faculty member will submit signed copies to the department office, the Associate Dean of Curricular & Faculty

Development, and to the faculty member’s personnel file in the Provost’s Office.

• A Resource Report, noting how the resources were used, written prior to the next Review, and submitted to the Associate Dean of Curricular & Faculty

IWU Faculty Handbook Chapter IV - 52

Development , with a copy deposited in the personnel file in the Provost’s office. Failure to file the Summary Form and Resource Report would disqualify the faculty member for monetary or in-kind support at the conclusion of the next review.

4. Program Oversight

The Faculty Development Committee (FDC) has the responsibility for general oversight of the program, but will not become involved in individual reviews.

The Associate Dean of Curricular & Faculty Development reports on program operations and budget to the FDC on an annual basis. If, based on the Associate Dean of Curricular & Faculty Development’s reports, FDC determines that the level of funding is not sufficient to support the Program, it will determine how much more money is needed and request this appropriation from the

administration. When necessary, the FDC should take proposed operational changes in the program to the General Faculty for their approval.

FDC will conduct a thorough review of the program five years after its

implementation. This review will determine the extent to which the program is meeting the development needs of tenured faculty members. At the completion of this review, FDC may recommend changes to the General Faculty.

At least once per year, FDC will review the Post-Tenure Review Program with the Associate Dean of Curricular & Faculty Development. Examples of topics to be reviewed on an annual basis are:

• Number of faculty completing the review process

• Types of professional development support received by faculty

• Adequacy of the dollar equivalent award in light of such factors as the cost of supporting faculty development activities

• The consistency of the ongoing PTRP process with the guiding principles

• Filing of Summary Forms and Resource Reports