Six Year Post-Tenure Faculty Review
1. The dean will ensure that evaluation of tenured faculty will be performed annually with a comprehensive periodic evaluation performed every six years (six year reviews). Tenured faculty members will be evaluated on a six-year cycle determined by the academic year of their award of tenure. The purpose of the six year review is to provide guidance for continuing and meaningful faculty development; to assist faculty to enhance professional skills and goals; to refocus academic and professional efforts, where appropriate; and to assure that faculty members are meeting their responsibilities to the university and the State of Texas.
2. Every six years the annual review documents for each year since the last six year review (or since the award of tenure if this is the first six year review) will be compiled along with any supporting material furnished by the faculty member for a comprehensive six year review to be conducted by a school review committee. The annual review at six years will be conducted prior to the six year review to allow evaluation and input by the chair/equivalent and peers prior to review by the school review committee. The faculty member will be notified at least six months in advance of the intent to perform the six year review.
3. Special circumstances that may alter the six year review timetable include:
- If the review period coincides with approved leave or a comprehensive review for promotion or appointment to an endowed position, the six year review may be delayed with the approval of the dean for up to one year from the regularly scheduled review date. In no case will review of a tenured faculty member be waived.
- For tenured faculty who are also academic administrators, the six year review will be held in conjunction with the review of administrators described in HOOP Policy 184 Evaluation of Academic Administrators.
4. The faculty member will submit the last six annual reviews, including teaching evaluations, as described in section 2 above, along with a current curriculum vitae and a summary of professional accomplishments. The faculty member is encouraged to submit a summary of professional objectives and any additional appropriate material.
5. The six year review will be conducted by a school-wide faculty committee approved by the dean with input from the school faculty and department chair/equivalent. The review process will take into account the statements of expectations and assignments from letters of appointment and annual reviews, and will include review of the faculty member's professional responsibilities in teaching, research, service, patient care and/or administration. The committee must consider factors beyond the individual faculty member’s control that may have impacted performance. Further information may be requested at any step from the faculty member under review. During the review, the faculty member may meet with the review committee, according to the guidelines established by the individual schools. All of the material provided to the committee will be maintained in a confidential manner.
6. The school-wide faculty committee will submit its recommendation on the review outcome in writing to the dean within a specified time, to be determined by the school. The dean will make a final determination on the outcome of the review, communicate such outcome in writing to the faculty member and his or her chair equivalent, and take appropriate action as described below.
7. Information obtained in the review will be used to recognize level of performance and determine appropriate action. The review outcome will be specified as one of the categories below.
- Category 1. For faculty with satisfactory performance, the review may be used to determine salary recommendations, nomination for awards or other forms of performance recognition.
- Category 2. For faculty whose performance indicates they would benefit from additional institutional assistance, the review may be used to determine what type of assistance may be provided, e.g., teaching effectiveness assistance, counseling, mentoring in research issues/service expectations, etc.
- Category 3. For faculty whose performance is unsatisfactory, review for termination as provided in HOOP Policy 133 Faculty Termination, may be considered.
8. Faculty in Category 2 must receive specific advice from the chair/equivalent in conjunction with the dean. The faculty member will receive in writing the guidelines for improvement along with assistance offered and a time line for accomplishments. Improvement will be monitored in subsequent annual evaluations.
9. Faculty in Categories 2 and 3 will have the opportunity to submit additional information to the chair/equivalent and/or the dean.
10. Faculty in Category 3 will have appropriate action initiated by the department chair/equivalent or the dean that may include dismissal for cause by processes detailed in HOOP Policy 133 Faculty Termination.
11. Faculty in all three categories whose performance indicates they would benefit from additional institutional support may be provided such support (e.g., teaching effectiveness assistance, counseling, or mentoring in research issues/service expectations).
12. The outcomes of all completed six-year reviews for each faculty member will be sent to the dean of the school. The dean will report annually to the Executive Vice President for Academic and Research Affairs the number of reviews, outcomes and any action to be taken as a result of the reviews (e.g., plan for remediation or termination for cause).