skip to content

Introduction

In order to promote the professional development of faculty and a culture of continuous improvement, Texas Woman's University has, for many years, evaluated the performance of all faculty. The annual performance review, as delineated in the Faculty Handbook, is designed to assess the faculty member's contributions to and competencies in teaching, service, and scholarship. Its purposes are to 1) provide a basis for professional growth and development, 2) recognize past professional performance and provide feedback to faculty who demonstrate a need for improvement, and 3) provide a structure for systematically measuring progress toward achieving promotion and tenure.

This annual evaluation of tenured and non-tenured faculty members involves a formal procedure incorporating self-evaluation, student evaluations, administrator evaluation, and, in many academic components, peer evaluation The review is based on the Faculty Role Profile and Performance Goals, which have been mutually agreed upon by the faculty member and academic administrator and the Annual Performance Review Portfolio, which includes an updated curriculum vitae. These materials receive thorough and careful consideration by the department chair, associate dean or program director, by the dean of the college or school, and by the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs.

In addition to the established annual evaluation, faculty members applying for promotion and/or tenure are required to submit comprehensive documentation of their accomplishments in each area of professional responsibility. The performance of the faculty member is evaluated by a component peer review committee, the department chair, associate dean or program director, the dean of the college or school, the University Promotion and Tenure Committee, the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, and the President. This performance review results in a decision either to promote and/or grant tenure or to deny promotion and/or tenure.

Faculty members seeking associate or full membership on the Graduate Faculty must meet the criteria established by both the Graduate Council and the component. In order to maintain graduate faculty membership, faculty members undergo a rigorous review every seven years.

Since many programs are accredited by professional associations and agencies, the faculty members who teach in those programs are expected to meet the demanding criteria required for accreditation or reaffirmation of accreditation, usually at intervals of five to ten years. Regularly scheduled examinations of the entire institution by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, the major regional accrediting body, consistently produce praise for the faculty for their effective teaching, advising, and service to students.

Texas Woman's University has fostered a culture of regular, systematic evaluation at all levels. Each year faculty evaluate the performance of administrators--President, Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, Associate Vice Presidents, Deans, Associate Deans, Program Directors, and Department Chairs. The results of these evaluations accompany the other material employed by supervisors in assessing the effectiveness of the administrators who report to them.

Recognizing the value of comprehensive evaluation in identifying both strengths and areas needing improvement, Texas Woman's University welcomes the continuation of a system of performance review of tenured faculty. Noting the Legislature's stipulation that "the process be directed toward the professional development of the faculty member," this policy will strengthen faculty performance, enable faculty members and academic administrators to determine those areas in which each person can contribute most significantly to the achievement of the component's mission, and promote a productive use of the faculty's various skills and talents.

Purpose and Standards

The purpose of all evaluation is to recognize achievement and provide a basis for professional growth and development so that all persons can successfully fulfill their professional responsibilities. The post-tenure review process applies to all individuals in the University who hold tenure, including those with primarily administrative assignments. The posttenure review process is designed to be an integral component of the ongoing annual performance review and the promotion and tenure process for faculty, and the annual evaluation process for administrators. This will provide a single, comprehensive faculty development and evaluation process.

All tenured faculty, including administrators, are to be evaluated in relation to the individual's assigned professional responsibilities. It should be noted that individuals serve in administrative positions at the pleasure of the immediate supervisor and can be removed from those positions at any time by the supervisor. The post-tenure review policy relates only to the individual's tenure as a faculty member.

The standards by which tenured faculty are evaluated are the same standards established by the component faculty for annual review. The time schedule for the review process is the annual review time schedule.

Peer Review Committee

For purposes of this policy, peers are defined as those individuals who have similar professional responsibilities. The peer review committee (PRC), for those individuals in faculty positions, is the committee utilized by the component in the promotion and tenure process. For the post-tenure review of department chairs, program directors and associate deans, the dean will appoint a PRC of three individuals holding similar positions. For the post-tenure review of deans and associate vice presidents, the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs will appoint a PRC of three individuals with similar levels of responsibility. The President will appoint an appropriate PRC for those administrators who report directly to her.

In those circumstances, as described below, in which a Professional Development Plan (PDP) is required, the faculty member may nominate one additional tenured faculty member from any TWU academic component for membership on the PRC for the construction and evaluation of the PDP.

Process

Annual performance review of faculty and administrators will continue under the guidelines already established. Post-tenure review by a peer review committee will be conducted at a minimum of every six years for each individual who holds tenure. Peer review will occur earlier if unsatisfactory performance is documented in the annual review.

For those components that currently conduct annual faculty performance review using an elected PRC, the annual faculty evaluation may constitute the post-tenure review in those components that so choose. Those faculty will be subject to the sequence and the time limits of both the informal and formal development plans described below if either their overall performance rating or their performance rating in the area of teaching is "Does Not Meet Standards."

Annual Review

If an annual review, using the established component process, results in a performance rating of "Does Not Meet Standards" in the area of teaching or if the over all rating is "Does Not Meet Standards," the academic administrator will establish with the faculty member a mutually agreeable plan to ameliorate the identified area(s) of concern. During the next annual review process (end of year one), the PRC and the academic administrator(s) will evaluate the faculty member's performance and progress toward correcting the area(s) of concern. If this evaluation results in a rating of "Satisfactory" or above, the faculty member will continue to be evaluated annually using the usual component process.

If the PRC and administrator(s) agree that the performance of the faculty member continues to merit a rating of "Does Not Meet Standards" either in teaching or as an overall rating, a formal professional development plan will be developed. The PDP will be designed jointly by the faculty member, the academic administrator(s), and the PRC. The plan will include, at a minimum, specific deficiencies to be addressed, mutually agreed upon goals to remedy the deficiencies, actions to be taken to achieve the goals, and a time frame to correct the identified deficiencies. The faculty member is obligated to participate in developing the PDP and to make a good faith effort to implement the plan.

During the next annual review process (end of year two), the faculty member will be evaluated again by the PRC and the academic administrator(s) to determine if the terms of the PDP have been met. If the PRC and academic administrator(s) agree that the faculty member's performance is satisfactory, the faculty member will continue to be evaluated annually using the usual component process.

If the PRC and academic administrator(s) determine that the individual's performance is still below standards, the PDP will be reviewed and renewed or revised. One additional year will be allowed before further action is taken. During the next annual review (end of year three), the faculty member will be evaluated by the PRC and academic administrator(s). If, at that time, the individual's performance is still evaluated as below standards, the PRC and the appropriate academic administrator(s) will recommend to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs appropriate disciplinary action which might include revocation of tenure and/or employment.

A faculty member may be subject to revocation of tenure or other appropriate disciplinary action if incompetency, neglect of duty, or other good cause is determined to be present. The Provost will, in consultation with the PRC and the appropriate academic administrator(s), determine the appropriate disciplinary action(s) under this Post-Tenure Review Policy, which might include termination of tenure and/or employment, and will notify the faculty member and the dean of the component of the disciplinary decision in writing.

The same general process will be followed for tenured academic administrators. Annual review will be conducted using the established procedures. If the overall evaluation during the annual review is less than satisfactory, the supervisor and administrator will develop a plan to correct deficiencies. During the next annual review (end of year one), the PRC and the supervisor will evaluate the administrator. If there is agreement that the performance is less than satisfactory, a formal PDP will be developed and annual peer review will be used to determine progress. If the performance meets standards during the next annual review, the administrator will continue to be reviewed annually using the usual procedures. If, after two years of peer evaluation, the performance is still determined to be below standards, the administrator will be subject to appropriate disciplinary action, which might include revocation of tenure.

Sixth Year Review

Those tenured faculty and administrators who receive satisfactory evaluations each year during the annual review will be reviewed by the PRC every six years after the granting of tenure, except in those components that choose to use the elected PRC for annual review. Subsequent to gaining tenure, if an individual is reviewed for promotion by a peer review committee in less than six years, that will be considered a post-tenure review and the next six-year cycle will be from the date of the promotion review.

For purposes of the post-tenure review, faculty need only submit the 1) Annual Performance Review Portfolio, 2) Annual Performance Review: Evaluation and Recommendations, and 3) Annual Performance Review: Summary of Recommendations, for the preceding five years. Additional materials may be submitted at the faculty member's discretion. Administrators will submit a current curriculum vitea and any other material deemed appropriate by the individual and the supervisor.

If the PRC and the academic administrator(s) give a performance rating of "Does Not Meet Standards" in the area of teaching or as an overall rating, a PDP will be developed. The PDP will be designed jointly by the faculty member, the academic administrator(s), and the PRC. The plan will include, at a minimum, specific deficiencies to be addressed, mutually agreed upon goals to remedy the deficiencies, actions to be taken to achieve the goals, and a time frame to correct the identified deficiencies. The faculty member is obligated to participate in developing the PDP and to make a good faith effort to implement the plan.

During the next three years, the faculty member will be evaluated annually by the PRC and academic administrator(s) to determine if the terms of the PDP have been met. At any time that the PRC and academic administrator(s) agree that the faculty member's performance is satisfactory, the faculty member will then continue to be evaluated annually using the usual component process.

If, after three years from the time of the initiation of the PDP, the PRC and academic administrator(s) determine that the individual's performance is still below standards, the PRC and the appropriate academic administrator(s) will recommend to the Provost appropriate disciplinary action which might include revocation of tenure and/or employment.

A faculty member may be subject to revocation of tenure or other appropriate disciplinary action if incompetency, neglect of duty, or other good cause is determined to be present. The Provost will, in consultation with the PRC and the appropriate academic administrator(s), determine the appropriate disciplinary action(s) under this Post-Tenure Review Policy, which might include termination of tenure and/or employment, and will notify the faculty member and the dean of the component of the disciplinary decision in writing.

Appeal Process

For disciplinary actions under this policy, other than revocation of tenure and/or employment, the faculty member may appeal the decision of the Provost to the Faculty Grievance Committee (FGC) under the procedures described in the Faculty Handbook for faculty grievances. The written appeal must be received by the Office of the Provost within ten days after the faculty member received the written decision of the Provost. The findings of the Faculty Grievance Committee, which may include modification of the disciplinary action, excluding termination, shall be final on this subject and shall not become a recommendation to the President.

If the decision of the Provost under this policy is for termination of the faculty member's tenure and/ or employment, the faculty member may, within ten days after receiving the written decision of the Provost, elect non-binding alternative dispute resolution (ADR) as described in Chapter 154, Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The Office of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs must receive the faculty member's election for ADR within the ten-day period. Days when the University is closed during holidays (Thanksgiving, Christmas, Spring Break) are not counted in computing the time periods under this policy.

The ADR is to be completed within sixty days after such election by the faculty member is received by the Provost, unless the time is extended in writing by mutual agreement of the parties. Further, the parties may mutually agree to another type of ADR in place of the one described above, which also must be completed within the sixty-day period.

If ADR was elected and does not resolve the matter, the faculty member, within ten days after receiving written acknowledgment from the Provost that ADR has not been successful, may appeal to the TWU University Review Committee (URC), as described below. If ADR was not elected, the faculty member, within ten days after receiving in writing the determination of the Provost that the appropriate disciplinary action is termination of tenure and/or employment, may appeal to the URC as described below. The Office of the Provost must receive the appeal to the URC within the ten-day period.

The appeal to the URC involves a hearing before a hearing committee of the URC. The URC members hearing the appeal may not, however, include any member of the faculty member's department or any person who has been involved in the dismissal process. The URC must set a date for its hearing and notify the parties. The University will present the principal reasons for the termination to the URC in writing a week prior to the hearing, with a copy of the reasons to the person being terminated. In any part of the hearing process, at least three-fourths of the members of the URC shall be required to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. Decisions of the URC must be reached on a majority vote, with the number of yes, no, and abstention votes recorded without designating the person who cast the vote.

The faculty member whose termination is being considered may choose to be represented at the hearing by a fellow faculty member or by an attorney. The University will be represented by a faculty member or an administrative official chosen by the President. The University may also be represented by an attorney, if the person being heard chooses to be represented by an attorney. The hearing process will involve due regard for the responsibility for giving advance notice of hearings, notice of reasons relied upon for the termination, an opportunity for hearing on those reasons, and other commonly recognized academic due process rights. The strict judicial rules of evidence will not be applied, and the URC may receive all evidence felt to be relevant and material to the issues in the hearing that reasonable persons are accustomed to reply upon.

The URC will be asked to rule on whether adequate cause exists for the termination and to report its findings to the President and to the Board of Regents, with a copy to the faculty member. If the finding in the URC's report to the President and to the Board of Regents is that the cause or causes for termination of tenure and employment are not adequate, this determination shall be final. If the finding in the URC's report to the President and to the Board of Regents supports the position that the cause or causes are adequate for termination of tenure and/or employment, the termination will be considered final, subject only to a request for an appeal to the Board of Regents. The URC's report to the President and to the Board of Regents must give specific written reasons for its determination.

Within ten days after the faculty member receives written notification of a URC decision supporting termination of tenure and/or employment, the faculty member may request an appeal to the Board of Regents by delivering a written request to the Office of the President. The Board of Regents may either consider the case on its merits or decline to do so. If the Board of Regents declines to consider the case on its merits, it will notify the faculty member of such decision in writing, giving the specific reasons that were cited by the URC for the decision to terminate the faculty member. Should the Board of Regents elect to consider the case on its merits, it will render its decision on the merits in writing, either finding in favor of the faculty member or giving specific reasons for any decision to terminate the faculty member on the basis of the evaluation(s) conducted pursuant to this Post-Tenure Review Policy.

APPROVED: 12/97
EDITED: 8/07

page last updated 2/1/2013 1:47 PM