Post-tenure Review

Tenured associate professors will have a third-year review in the third year following promotion and every three years thereafter until promotion to full professor. They will not be required to complete a third-year review in a year when they are seeking a promotion to full professor. Following promotion, full professors will have alternating third-year reviews and major sixth-year post-tenure reviews. The primary function of post-tenure reviews is to foster continued faculty professional growth. If a review is not successful, then a development plan may be established. 

Post-tenure reviews are required for all tenured faculty except those who hold full-time administrative appointments or who have had approved leaves without pay (LWOP) for reasons not related to their own research.  Faculty on yearlong sabbatical may delay the post-tenure review until the following year; however, faculty on a one- or two-term sabbatical will undergo review in the scheduled year during a non-sabbatical term. 

Criteria for post-tenure reviews, modified in light of any written agreement with the faculty member, are: 1) the quality of teaching, 2) the quality of research, creative and artistic achievement, and professional growth, and 3) the quality of service. Specific expectations and criteria for post-tenure review should be included in unit promotion and tenure policies. 

Third-Year Post-Tenure Review

The primary purpose of the third-year post-tenure review is to provide an honest appraisal of the faculty member’s development of their scholarship, teaching, and service. For associate professors, the third-year post-tenure review offers meaningful feedback on progress toward promotion to full professor, but the third-year post-tenure review represents an important development opportunity for all tenured faculty members.  

Third-year reviews will be informal unless a department head and dean agree, or the Office of the Provost determines, that a formal review is necessary for the faculty member to meet expectations for a subsequent review. In general, a tenured associate professor meets or exceeds expectations in a third-year review if they are on track for a successful promotion to full professor at the next review. This is understood to be a discipline- and stage-appropriate assessment in relation to their unit-level promotion-to-full standards. In general, a full professor will meet or exceed expectations in a third-year review if they are on track to meet or exceed expectations in their next sixth-year major review. The faculty member will be notified if they are to undergo a formal review when that decision is made (at the outset or after an informal review).  

Informal Third-Year Reviews. The informal third-year review is conducted by the appropriate department or unit head with the faculty member. Informal review materials will typically consist of a curriculum vitae, personal statement, and a sabbatical report, if applicable. As a result of the review, the department or unit head will prepare a brief statement and share it with the candidate, who will have 10 days to respond in writing. The full dossier is then sent to the dean for review. The full dossier is then sent to the Office of the Provost for review and approval by January 30, 2024. If in the process of preparing or approving the review, the department or unit head and dean agree, or the Office of the Provost determines, that a formal review is necessary to meet expectations on a subsequent major review, they will initiate the Formal Review process below and notify the faculty member. If a formal review is initiated, the head’s statement and candidate’s response will become part of the formal review dossier. 

Formal Third-Year Reviews. This process applies to associate and full professors who undergo a formal third-year review. The department or unit head will convene a faculty personnel committee (if one does not already exist in the department or unit) that will review a faculty member’s work in relation to the unit-level post-tenure review criteria. The tenured department faculty with the same or higher rank, not including the candidate, will vote to endorse the committee’s report and recommendation. The department or unit head will write a separate report in light of the materials gathered and the committee’s report and the faculty vote. The department or unit head will meet with the candidate and will provide a redacted copy of the head’s report. The faculty member will have 10 days from the date of the receipt of the report to provide responsive material or information, which shall be included in the evaluation file. These will be reviewed by the dean and the Office of the Provost by May 1, 2024. If the result of the review is to recommend that a development plan is required and the Office of the Provost agrees, then the head and faculty member will develop one in consultation with the dean to be approved by the Office of the Provost. 

Specific Guidelines Regarding Third-Year Post-Tenure Review

To initiate the third-year post-tenure review process, the unit head will contact the faculty member during the fall term of the third year and request the following: 

  • A comprehensive, current curriculum vitae 
  • A personal statement by the faculty member discussing their professional activities over the period since the last tenure, promotion, or post-tenure evaluation. The personal statement should explicitly address scholarship, teaching, and service activities and accomplishments. It should also include a discussion of contributions to institutional equity and inclusion. 
  • Sabbatical report, if applicable. 

The faculty member is responsible for preparing these documents and submitting them to the unit head by a mutually agreed-upon date.  

Additional Materials

The academic unit will add the following additional materials related to teaching quality into the file:  

  • Peer Review of Teaching: At least one peer review of teaching, conducted during the review period, will be added to the file. For best practices regarding Peer Review of Teaching, see the Teaching Engagement Program’s page including observation tools and report templates.  
  • Teaching Overview Report: This report includes a list of all courses taught during the review period. The report can be accessed by academic unit support staff through cognos.uoregon.edu.   
  • Teaching Detail Report (E-SES): This report includes all completed Student Experience Survey results, including student comments, from all courses taught in the review period. The teaching detail report can be accessed by academic unit managers through cognos.uoregon.edu, Team Content > Departmental Folders > Provost’s Office > Teaching Evaluation Reports. 
  • Instructor Reflection Report (optional):  The instructor reflection report can be accessed by academic unit managers through cognos.uoregon.edu, Team Content > Departmental Folders > Provost’s Office > Teaching Evaluation Reports. 
  • When the file is complete, the unit head will: 
  • Review the file in conformity with unit policy and practice. Make sure that, in the case of associate professors, the report specifically and honestly appraises the faculty member’s progress toward a successful review for promotion to full professor. 
  • Make sure that, in the case of any faculty member who has undergone an earlier post-tenure review that resulted in the creation of a development plan due to unsatisfactory performance, the faculty member’s progress in addressing concerns is discussed. 

Sixth-Year Post-Tenure Review
Full Professors Only

To initiate the sixth-year post-tenure review process, the unit head will contact the faculty member during the fall term of the sixth year and request the following: 

  • Election of criteria: The criteria the bargaining unit faculty member chooses to be reviewed under, if there has been a change in criteria during the preceding six years 
  • Curriculum vitae: A comprehensive and current curriculum vitae that includes the faculty member’s current research, scholarly, and creative activities and accomplishments, including publications, appointments, presentations, and other activities. 
  • Personal statement: A personal statement developed by the faculty member evaluating their performance during the review period against the applicable criteria for post-tenure review. The personal statement should address the subjects of teaching; scholarship, research, and creative activity; and service contributions to the academic unit, center or institute, school or college, university, profession, and the community. The statement should also include discussion of contributions to institutional equity and inclusion. 
  • Sabbatical report, if applicable 
  • The faculty member is responsible for preparing these documents and submitting them to the unit head by a mutually agreed upon date.  

Additional Materials

The academic unit will add the following additional materials related to teaching quality into the file:  

  • Peer Review of Teaching: At least one peer review of teaching, conducted during the review period, will be added to the file.   
  • Teaching Overview Report: This report includes a list of all courses taught during the review period The report can be accessed by academic unit managers through cognos.uoregon.edu.   
  • Teaching Detail Report (E-SES): This report includes all completed Student Experience Survey results, including student comments, from all courses as of Fall 2019.  The teaching detail report can be accessed by academic unit managers through cognos.uoregon.edu, Team Content > Departmental Folders > Provost’s Office > Teaching Evaluation Reports. 
  • Instructor Reflection Report (optional): The instructor reflection report can be accessed by academic unit managers through cognos.uoregon.edu, Team Content > Departmental Folders > Provost’s Office > Teaching Evaluation Reports. 
  • When the file is complete, the unit head will: 
  • Establish a committee of full professors and provide them with access to the documents and information. 
  • Obtain a report and recommendation from the faculty committee assessing the faculty member’s performance. 
  • Prepare their own written evaluation of the faculty member’s performance. 
  • Provide the unit head’s report to the candidate and allow them 10 days from the date of the receipt of the report to provide a written response, which shall be included in the file when it moves forward. (If a unit has or develops a policy or practice of providing the report of the faculty committee to the faculty member, the unit head shall do so.) 
  • Submit the evaluation file to the appropriate dean. 

The dean will review the file and prepare a separate report and recommendation. The dean will share their report and recommendation with the candidate and allow them 10 days from the date of receipt of the report to provide a written response, which shall be included in the evaluation file when it moves forward. The dean will then submit the complete evaluation file to the Office of the Provost by June 14, 2024

Submitting the File

Submit the sixth-year review materials (dean, department head, department committee) and the faculty member’s personal statement, curriculum vitae, sabbatical report, and responsive material to the Office of the Provost no later than June 15th. 

Sixth-year PTR files are to be submitted to OtP using an OtP-provided Microsoft OneDrive “Request for Files” link. All UO unit academic support staff have access to OneDrive and the “Request for Files” link will be sent out at the start of winter term in preparation for the submission deadline. If you are unfamiliar with OneDrive or have questions about its use, please contact your IT staff. 

Upload the candidate’s materials using to our “Request for Files” the following steps: 

  1. Create a folder (using your designated school/college process), using the naming convention Last, First - School/College Dept – Review Type (e.g. Doe, Jane - CAS History - 6PTR).  
    • Upload all materials to your candidate’s folder. 
  2. Select the “Request for Files” link from the OtP email you were sent. 
  3. You can upload all folders for all major reviews in your school/college using the “Request for Files” link provided.  
    • You may also make any corrections by updating the candidate’s folder and resubmitting the materials before the June 14th deadline. 
    • After the June 14th deadline, this completed folder will constitute the version to be reviewed through the remainder of the process, unless the candidate provides additional materials before the Provost's decision. 
    • The candidate may add materials to the file up until the Provost’s decision. 
    • Any addenda, corrections, or added materials must be signed and dated by the candidate and must clearly show what is being added or corrected. 
    • Do not remove any materials from the file even if the candidate adds an updated version 
    • if the file is still in the department, contact the head  
    • if the file is at the Dean’s office, contact the dean 
    • If the file is at the Provost’s office, contact the VPAA. 
  4. Microsoft Office “Request for Files” will notify OtP when candidate’s folders are dropped into our online repository. There is no need to email our office when you complete this process. 

Questions about the preparation of the review file may be sent to OtP@uoregon.edu

The provost or designee will consider the cumulative evaluations received from the faculty committee, the unit head, and the dean. In the case of full professors, if the provost or designee concludes that the faculty member’s overall performance was in the highest category (exceeds expectations, fully satisfactory, positive evaluation on all criteria) then the bargaining unit faculty member will receive a raise consistent with the guidelines included in the collective bargaining agreement (Article 20 and Article 26). If the provost or designee concludes that the faculty member’s overall performance is unsatisfactory, the dean and the unit head shall consult with the faculty member and recommend to the provost a development plan for demonstrable improvement. The development plan should be implemented as soon as practicable after a determination of unsatisfactory performance and have a goal of reaching satisfactory performance by the next scheduled third-year post-tenure review. 

If a sixth-year post-tenure review results in the creation of a development plan, future post-tenure reviews for the faculty member must include consideration of the extent to which the terms of the development plan have been met. However, progress toward meeting the goals of such a development plan need not and should not be evaluated solely within the context of the post-tenure review process. Failure to make substantial progress toward meeting the goals of a development plan may be evidence of inadequate performance. 

All materials and reports associated with post-tenure reviews should be placed in the faculty member’s personnel file maintained at the unit level and also submitted to human resources for inclusion in the permanent personnel file. 

Requesting File Access  

Faculty seeking access to their review file should contact the Office of the Provost (otp@uoregon.edu) at the conclusion of the personnel review process to assure the process and file are complete. OtP will work with the deansand ELR to provide access to the file in accordance with the employee’s signed waiver letter or in the absence of a waiver process.