Preamble

Winthrop University’s mission as a comprehensive teaching university depends upon the contributions of a strong and dedicated faculty. The University affirms its commitment to tenure as essential to this mission and its need to support and reward faculty in reaching their potential as teachers, scholars, creative artists and professionals.

Winthrop has developed annual review, pretenure review, tenure and promotion processes to provide feedback to faculty members on their performance, to recognize and reward faculty for outstanding performance, and to assist faculty in improving when their performance falls below expectations.

This post-tenure review process complements Winthrop’s other forms of faculty evaluation and is the University’s response to the mandate in Act 359 (1996), South Carolina’s performance funding legislation, that public institutions of higher education include in their faculty performance review systems periodic peer evaluation of tenured faculty members. This process complies with the "Best Practices for Post-Tenure Review" mandated by the South Carolina Commission on Higher Education.

Winthrop University will periodically evaluate this procedure for its effectiveness in achieving its goals and complementing the other aspects of the performance review process. Should the Commission on Higher Education no longer require post-tenure review, the University faculty, vice president, president and Board of Trustees will review this procedure and decide whether it should be continued, particularly in light of the faculty time and effort involved and Winthrop’s existing comprehensive faculty evaluation process.

I. Faculty Responsibilities

Winthrop University faculty are expected to meet their responsibilities to the institution, our students, and the state, which collectively include the following areas cited in the University’s tenure policy:

    Teaching and instructional support
    Scholarship and professional recognition
    Service to the institution, community and profession

Individual faculty responsibilities are defined in terms of the role and expectations for the faculty member within the department and should be viewed in the context of the faculty member’s career stage, rank and individual goals.

Committees will write post-tenure review reports evaluating faculty in the areas outlined above. The reports will be considered in decisions about faculty development opportunities and salary increases.

At Winthrop, the primary responsibility for most faculty members is defined as teaching. In the case of library faculty members, the faculty member’s primary responsibility is assisting with the education and information needs of the faculty, students, and the public. For academic administrators, whose responsibilities may not permit the ongoing pursuit of normal faculty activities, these faculty members’ primary responsibilities will be defined as activities in support of the institution’s values and mission for faculty members and students. their own teaching, research and service and their support of other faculty and students in pursuit of these activities.

II. Frequency of Review and Exceptions

All tenured faculty will participate in post-tenure review every six years. Faculty members will be reviewed in cohorts based on multiples of six years since the year in which their tenure was effective (i. e., 6, 12, 18, 24 years, etc.):

For tenured faculty who are awarded promotion after the post-tenure review cycle begins (i. e., the promotion review takes place in 1999-2000 or after), the promotion review will serve as the peer review required for post-tenure review; the next post-tenure review will be scheduled six years after the year of promotion review.

Exceptions to the six-year cycle of post-tenure review:

III. Review Committee

A. Membership on Post-Tenure Review Committees

All members of post-tenure review committees will be tenured Winthrop faculty.

No faculty member will serve on a post-tenure review committee in the year in which he or she is scheduled for post-tenure review. A faculty member may be called upon to serve on more than one post-tenure review committee in a year.

In most cases, associate deans and assistant deans will not serve on review committees in their own departments; however, in small departments where insufficient numbers of eligible faculty are available, they may serve on review committees. Associate and assistant deans and department chairs may serve on committees outside their departments. In no case will a department chair or dean serve on a review committee for a faculty member from his or her department.

For department chairs and associate and assistant deans, the dean will perform the functions described below for department chairs; for deans, the vice president for academic affairs will perform the functions described below for deans.

B. Procedure for Selecting Committee Members

Candidates for post-tenure review The faculty member being reviewed will submit a list of possible committee members to the department chair.

The committee will be selected by the department chair in consultation with the faculty member being reviewed. A majority of the committee must be chosen from the list of suggested members provided by thecandidate faculty member.

The department chair will submit the list of committee members to the dean, who will approve the committee as complying with post-tenure review policies and procedures. The candidate faculty member can appeal to the dean for reconsideration of the appointment of any committee members who are not selected from the list provided. by the candidate.

C. Composition of the Committee

For faculty members, reviews will be conducted by a committee of three faculty members:

One member of the committee from thecandidate’s faculty member’s department (if there are sufficient numbers of tenured faculty members).

One memberfrom outside external to the department.

A third faculty member, preferably to be chosen from within the faculty member’s department.

For assistant and associate deans, the committee will include:

One faculty member (if there are sufficient numbers of tenured faculty) from the associate/assistant dean’s academic department.

One additional faculty member from the academic unit in which he or she serves.

One assistant or associate dean from another academic unit.

For academic deans, the committee will include:

One faculty member (if there are sufficient numbers of tenured faculty) from the dean’s academic department.

One additional faculty member from the academic unit in which he or she serves.

One dean from another academic unit.

 

IV. Materials to be considered in the review

Faculty members being reviewed should submit the following materials:

1. A concise statement (2-3 pages) from the faculty member assessing his or her performance in the areas of teaching, scholarly attainment and professional recognition, and service since the last review (if necessary beyond statements included in annual reports); the statement may also address the faculty member’s role and expectations within the department and goals and directions for the next six years. Faculty members who consider their primary responsibility to be research, creative activity or other activities should include a letter of appointment from the University identifying their primary responsibility.

2. A current curriculum vitae.

3. Annual reports with department chair’s and dean’s evaluations for the last six years.

4. Detailed information about the outcomes of any sabbatical leave awarded during the six-year post-tenure review period.

The committee may request additional information from thecandidate faculty member under review.

If desired by a faculty member, the committee may send evidence of scholarly activity and, as appropriate, teaching effectiveness and service to one or more reviewers outside the University. External reviewers will be selected by the committee in consultation with the faculty member being reviewed.

V. Results of the Review

A. Committee Report

The review committee will write a post-tenure review report evaluating the faculty member’s performanceas either and rating him or her as "Satisfactory" or "Unsatisfactory." The report will provide evidence for the committee’s rating and suggestions for future performance and development. The committee will send copies of the report to the faculty member under review, who will be given the opportunity to respond in writing to the review.

B. Satisfactory Review

In the case of a "Satisfactory" review, the committee’s report will document areas in which the faculty member has excelled and make recommendations for future performance and development.

The report, with the faculty member’s response (if any), will be sent from the committee to the department chair and to the dean. The department chair and the dean may attach statements to the report indicating the degree to which they concur with the report; these statements will also be sent to the committee and the candidate faculty member. However, in the case of a "Satisfactory" evaluation, the committee report cannot be overturned nor the rating changed to "Unsatisfactory" by the chair or the dean.

The committee report will be used considered by department chairs and deans in the faculty review system and in decisions concerning faculty development salary increases. A copy of the report and all supporting statements will be kept in the dean’s office.

A list of faculty members who have received "Satisfactory" post-tenure reviews in a unit will be forwarded annually to the vice president for academic affairs.

C. Unsatisfactory Review

In the case of an "Unsatisfactory" review, the committee’s report will document in what ways the faculty member is negligent or incompetent in the performance of his or her primary responsibility.

The committee will recommend a development plan, to include

realistic goals and expectations for performance

activities to improve performance

a timeline (two years) for completing the development plan

suggested resources to support the plan

methods for assessing achievement of the goals and expectations, including peer and student evaluation of performance.

The department chair will prepare a written statement indicating whether he or she agrees or disagrees with the evaluation, then forward the committee report, the faculty member’s response (if any) and the chair’s statement to the dean. The chair’s statement will also be sent to the committee and the faculty member.

The dean will prepare a written statement indicating whether he or she agrees or disagrees with the evaluation and forward the report and statements from the faculty member, the chair and the dean to the vice president for academic affairs. The dean’s statement will also be sent to the committee, the faculty member and the department chair.

The Vice president for Academic Affairs will respond in writing to the dean, department chair, the committee and the faculty member indicating whether he or she agrees with the "Unsatisfactory" rating.

If the department chair, dean or vice president disagrees with the "Unsatisfactory" rating, they will discuss the rating and, if all three two of them agree, the rating will be changed to "Satisfactory."

If the department chair, dean and vice president agree with the "Unsatisfactory" rating, another review of the faculty member’s performance will be completed after two years. The department chair will retain a complete copy of the materials submitted for the review, the committee report, and any statements from the faculty member, department chair, dean and vice president.

D. Second Review after an Unsatisfactory Evaluation

The second review will take place within three months of the completion of the two-year development plan. As feasible, the committee which conducted the previous review will be reconvened to conduct the second review. If a committee member is unavailable for the second review, a replacement will be chosen by the department chair in consultation with the faculty member.

The following materials will be provided to the committee by the faculty member and department chair:

a complete copy of the materials from the first review (see above, V C 7)

annual reports for the years during which the development plan is in place, with the department chair’s and dean’s statements

information related to teaching effectiveness, including syllabi, assignments and other course materials from the period during which the development plan is in place

complete sets of student evaluations from all courses taught by the faculty member during the period in which the development plan is in place

a statement from the faculty member delineating the activities undertaken during the development period with a self-evaluation of the outcomes of the completed development plan

copies of the results of any assessments required by the development plan

a statement from the chair documenting resources provided to support the development plan

any other materials which the candidate faculty member feels address his or her progress within the context of the development plan.

The committee will review the materials above and decide whether the faculty member has made significant progress toward addressing the problems identified in the initial "Unsatisfactory" review. If the committee decides that the faculty member has fully and successfully addressed all issues, the committee will return a rating of "Satisfactory," with the next review to take place in six years.

If the committee returns an "Unsatisfactory" evaluation on the second review, the faculty member can add a response to the committee report, which is forwarded to the department chair.

The department chair will prepare a written statement indicating whether he or she agrees or disagrees with the evaluation, then forward the committee report, the faculty member’s response (if any) and the chair’s statement to the dean. The chair’s statement will also be sent to the committee and the faculty member.

The dean will prepare a written statement indicating whether he or she agrees or disagrees with the evaluation and forward the report and statements from the faculty member, the chair and the dean to the vice president for academic affairs. The dean’s statement will also be sent to the committee, the faculty member and the department chair.

The Vice President for Academic Affairs will respond in writing to the dean, department chair, the committee and the faculty member indicating whether he or she agrees with the "Unsatisfactory" rating.

If the department chair, dean or vice president disagrees with the "Unsatisfactory" rating, they will discuss the rating and, if all three two of them agree, the rating will be changed to "Satisfactory."

As mandated by the Commission on Higher Education, if a faculty member fails to make substantial progress towards the performance goals outlined in the development plan within the specified two-year period and does not receive a "Satisfactory"" in the opinion of the committee, department chair and dean on the on subsequent review, the vice president can require that the development plan be continued for another two years, or can recommend that the institution initiate procedures for dismissal of the faculty member, as outlined in the Winthrop University Faculty Manual.

The Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure will serve as the appeals committee in all cases involving post-tenure review.

A. Basis for Appeals and Actions by the Appeals Committee

A faculty member may appeal the results of a post-tenure review rating for any of the following reasons:

An appeal on the basis that the procedures and timetable outlined in this document were not followed or that the post-tenure review committee was improperly constituted or improperly directed.

An appeal of the substance of the committee’s evaluation of the faculty member’s performance as "Unsatisfactory." Such appeals should reflect a set of unusual or extraordinary circumstances and will require considerable supporting evidence, particularly in cases in which the review committee, department chair, dean and vice president for academic affairs concurred in the evaluation.

An appeal of the development plan, requesting an adjustment of the plan recommended by the review committee and approved by the vice president for academic affairs.

Depending on the nature of the appeal, the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure may suggest

that the evaluation of the post-tenure review committee be allowed to stand

that the development plan recommended by the review committee be revised

that a new committee be constituted and the review process repeated in the following year, using the usual same procedures as for all post-tenure reviews.

B. Procedures for Appeals

Any faculty member who desires to appeal should, within five days of receiving the vice president’s evaluation and development plan, forward to the president and the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure:

A letter outlining the basis for the appeal and stating the desired outcome (revision of development plan or review by a new post-tenure review committee).

The entire post-tenure review package, including the committee’s report, any response from the faculty member, and the department chair’s, dean’s and vice president’s statements.

Within two weeks, the committee will forward its findings to the president, the academic vice president, and the faculty member. The committee’s report should reflect the basis and evidence for the appeal and recommend one of the courses of action listed above.

Within two weeks of receiving the report of the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure, the president will report to the Committee, the Aacademic vice president and faculty member whether the development plan should be revised, whether a new review should be completed in the next academic year, or whether the post-tenure review committee’s evaluation should be allowed to stand.

Should the president not respond to the Committee’s recommendation within two weeks, the Committee’s recommendation will be allowed to stand.

VIII. Timetable

May 1 - Vice president for academic affairs updates post-tenure review list and notifies deans of those faculty to be reviewed the following year.

May 15 - Deans notify faculty (and their department chairs) who will be reviewed in the following year.

Sept 15 - Faculty member provides the department chair a list of faculty members to be considered for the review committee.

Oct 15 - Department chair selects the committee and forwards list to the dean for approval; faculty member is notified of the committee membership.  Faculty member provides committee with materials for the review.

Nov 1 - Faculty member may appeal the composition of the committee to the dean.

Feb 1 - Committee sends its report to the faculty member and department chair.

Feb 15 - Faculty member responds to the report if he or she wishes.

Mar 1 - Department chair adds a written statement and forwards the report, with the faculty member’s response, to the dean.

Mar 15 - In the case of "Satisfactory" ratings, the dean adds a statement and returns the report, with all supporting statements, to the faculty member.  A copy of the department chair’s and dean’s response will be shared with the committee. A copy of the report and all supporting statements is kept in the dean’s office.

Mar 30 - The list of faculty members receiving "Satisfactory" reviews is forwarded to the vice president.

In the case of "Unsatisfactory" reviews:

Feb 1 - Committee sends its report to the faculty member and department chair.

Feb 15 - Faculty member responds to the report if he or she wishes.

Mar 1 - Department chair adds a written statement and forwards the report, with the faculty member’s response, to the dean.

Mar 15 - Dean adds a statement to the report and forwards all supporting materials and statements to the vice president, department chair, committee and faculty member.

Mar 31 - After conferring with the department chair and dean, the vice president responds in writing to the faculty member, dean, department chair and committee. If this response results in a "Satisfactory" rating, the dean’s office will maintain a copy of all reports and supporting statements.

If this response results in an "Unsatisfactory" rating, the faculty member begins the development plan and will be reviewed again after two years. Review of satisfactory progress on the development plan at the end of two years will follow the same timetable as the original review.

April 6 - Appeals due to the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure.

April 20 - Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure forwards its response to the president, vice president and faculty member.

May 5 - President’s response due to the faculty member, vice president and dean and to the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure. A copy of the report on the president’s final decision is kept in the dean’s office.

Rev. December 16, 1998