Post-tenure Review

Optional deferral of PTRs without salary implications in AY21-22 (i.e., 3rd-year PTRs for associate and full professors and 6th-year PTRs for associate professors): Faculty may opt to defer their review for a year. This is, in effect, an extension of the AY20-21 policy for COVID related reasons.[1] The next review will take place on the regular schedule (i.e., two years later). Note that faculty who were scheduled for a PTR in AY20-21 and decided to defer this review are not eligible to defer again. The policy aims to relieve the bottleneck, already widely observed and commented upon, due the backlog of PTRs originally scheduled for AY20-21. Continuing the AY20-21 policy into AY21-22 should relieve some pressure on personnel committees, unit heads, and deans.

The primary functions of post-tenure review are faculty development and the identification of clear expectations and areas for improvement over the next review period. Post-tenure reviews include a third-year interim review and a sixth-year major review. Post-tenure reviews take place every three years following the awarding of tenure. 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.

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 his or her 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 formal development opportunity for all tenured faculty members. Third-year post-tenure reviews take place at the unit level. Deans are not involved beyond approval of the unit’s policy regarding post-tenure review.

In any post-tenure review, a development plan is required for faculty who do not meet expectations in one or more areas (i.e., research, teaching, and service). The plan will be developed with appropriate consultation and discussion among the faculty member, unit head, and the dean to address the area(s) where expectations have not been met. Ideally, there will be consensus regarding the development plan, but if consensus is not possible, a plan receiving the dean’s approval will be forwarded to the provost or designee for review and approval. The plan should include benchmarks for improvement such that successfully meeting the expectations of the plan will also count as meeting expectations in that area for the next review. If a faculty member has been unsuccessful in completing a development plan in a sixth-year review, it is possible that their professional duties may be changed.

The third-year post-tenure review is not a disciplinary proceeding, nor will it be used to change a faculty member’s regular duties without consultation and agreement with the faculty member. No salary increases are associated with third-year post-tenure reviews. The timeframe and purposes of merit evaluations are different than third-year post-tenure reviews.

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 3-6 page personal statement by the faculty member discussing his or her 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.

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 manager 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, summary data from numerical student Course Evaluations (2008-2019), and summary data from Student Experience Surveys (Fall 2019-present). Note that due to COVID-19, no Student Experience Survey data is available from Spring or Summer 2020. 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. Note that due to COVID-19, no Student Experience Survey data is available from Spring or Summer 2020. 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): This report includes only Instructor Reflections. Each individual Instructor Reflection prints to its own pages, making it possible to eliminate any Instructor Reflections a faculty member under review may choose to omit from their dossier. 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.
  • The “Pre-2019 Student Comment Report” from CollegeNET includes all signed comments from student Course Evaluations, which were in use from 2008-2019. If the faculty under review did not teach at UO prior to Fall 2019, please include a note in the Supplementary File Template indicating this as the reason no report is included. These are available from CollegeNET, accessed via duckweb.uoregon.edu. From CollegeNET select Reports > Report Browser > (Select Instructor and all courses in the review window) > Create Batch File > Click Batch Reports > Select “Pre-2019 Student Comment Report”. These instructions provide screen shots from CollegeNET to assist you.

When the file is complete, the unit head will:

  • Review the file in conformity with unit policy and practice. The file may be reviewed directly by the unit head, who will then prepare a brief report, or first by a unit committee, which will provide a written report to the unit head that may be used as is or supplemented by an additional written report by the unit head.
  • 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 sixth-year post-tenure review that resulted in the creation of a development plan due to unsatisfactory performance (see discussion of sixth-year post-tenure review, below), the faculty member’s success in addressing concerns is discussed.

For full professors, the third-year post-tenure review also represents an important opportunity to provide interim guidance regarding accomplishments and concerns in the areas of scholarship, teaching, and service. Because successful sixth-year post-tenure reviews offer the possibility of a substantial salary increase for full professors (but not associate professors), feedback provided during the third-year post-tenure review can increase the likelihood of a successful sixth-year post-tenure review in the future.

The report should be signed and dated by the unit head and shared with the faculty member, who should also sign and date the report to acknowledge its receipt. The faculty member may provide a written response if she or he desires within 10 days of receipt of the report. An extension may be granted by mutual agreement between the faculty member and the unit head.

The report and written response from the faculty member, if provided, should be placed in the faculty member’s personnel file maintained at the unit level.

Sixth-Year Post-Tenure Review

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 3-6 page personal statement developed by the faculty member evaluating his or her 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.
  • Scholarship Portfolio: A scholarship portfolio presenting comprehensive evidence of the faculty member's scholarship, research, and/or creative activity. The portfolio typically would include such evidence as complete copies of published books and articles, recordings of performances or productions, photographs of works of art, installations or exhibits, program notes, etc. It is permissible and advisable for the candidate to include evidence of work-in-progress, typically at an advanced stage (e.g., a book manuscript under review).
  • Sabbatical portfolio: A report of the accomplishments and benefits resulting from sabbatical, 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 manager 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, summary data from numerical student Course Evaluations (2008-2019), and summary data from Student Experience Surveys (Fall 2019-present). Note that due to COVID-19, no Student Experience Survey data is available from Spring or Summer 2020. 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. Note that due to COVID-19, no Student Experience Survey data is available from Spring or Summer 2020. 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): This report includes only Instructor Reflections. Each individual Instructor Reflection prints to its own pages, making it possible to eliminate any Instructor Reflections a faculty member under review may choose to omit from their dossier. 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.
  • The “Pre-2019 Student Comment Report” from CollegeNET includes all signed comments from student Course Evaluations, which were in use from 2008-2019. If the faculty under review did not teach at UO prior to Fall 2019, please include a note in the Supplementary File Template indicating this as the reason no report is included. These are available from CollegeNET, accessed via duckweb.uoregon.edu. From CollegeNET select Reports > Report Browser > (Select Instructor and all courses in the review window) > Create Batch File > Click Batch Reports > Select “Pre-2019 Student Comment Report”. These instructions provide screen shots from CollegeNET to assist you.

When the file is complete, the unit head will:

  • Establish a committee of tenured faculty members and provide them with access to the documents and information.
  • Obtain a report from the faculty committee assessing the faculty member’s performance.
  • Prepare his or her own written evaluation of the faculty member’s performance.
  • Department heads and personnel committees may find these materials, developed with promotion-and-tenure and promotion processes in mind, useful as they evaluate the teaching of faculty under review.
  • Provide the unit head’s report to the faculty member and allow him or her 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 his or her report and recommendation with the faculty member and allow him or her 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 provost or designee.

Submitting the File

Submit the sixth-year review materials (dean, department head, department committee) and the faculty member’s personal statement, curriculum vitae, 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 employees 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 (e.g. Doe, Jane - CAS History).
    1. 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.
    1. You may also make any corrections by updating the candidate’s folder and resubmitting the materials before the June 15th deadline.
    2. After the June 15th deadline, this completed folder will constitute the version to be reviewed through the remainder of the process. Any changes made after this point will not be reflected in the final version.
  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 promotion and tenure 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 (Articles 20 and 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.