Faculty Appointments & Review — Five-Year Peer Review of Tenured Faculty

Purpose of the Five-year Peer Review
Schedule of Five-year Peer Reviews
Distribution and Use of the Five-year Peer Review
Collegiate Standards for Five-year Peer Review
Departmental Standards for Tenured Faculty Review
Processes for Five-year Peer Review
Standard Five-year Peer Review Process
Extended Five-year Peer Review Process
Outcomes of the Five-year Peer Review
Reviews of Jointly Appointed Faculty

These procedures were approved by vote of the CLAS Faculty Assembly on November 16, 2011, and approved by the Office of the Provost on June 26, 2012, as consistent with the UI Policy on Review of Tenured Faculty (UI Operations Manual, III.10.7.c and d).

Purpose of the Review

Under University policy, each faculty member undergoes a review by his/her faculty peers every five years subsequent to the most recent tenure or promotion review.  These peer reviews are, in the main, formative and developmental and should facilitate and encourage professional vitality. 

The five-year review provides an assessment that re-enforces or strengthens the work of the tenured faculty member. It also informs course staffing, distribution of responsibilities for departmental service, professional development and leaves of absence, nomination for teaching awards, and other decisions under the department's or the College’s purview.

Schedule of Five-year Peer Reviews

Each fall the College sends to the DEO a list of faculty members who will undergo tenured faculty review in the spring.

The DEO is not included on the review schedule during his or her term in office. Faculty who have announced in writing that they intend to retire within a year need not be included on the review schedule; faculty on phased retirement are not exempt until their final year of service. A review for promotion during the five-year period postpones the next tenured faculty review by five years.

There are two kinds of tenured faculty review process, the standard and the extended (see below).

Distribution and Use of the Five-year Peer Review

The five-year review is confidential and the materials are shared only with the faculty member, the review committee, the DEO, the Dean, and others directed by the faculty member.  The materials are also made available to the subsequent five-year peer review committee.

Collegiate Standards for Tenured Faculty Review

The departmental and collegiate standards must be distributed to faculty undergoing Five-year Tenured Faculty Review and to the peer review committees.

The College's “Standards for Tenured Faculty Review” are published here. Each department shall have written standards, approved by the College and the Provost, that are consistent with the collegiate document and that set forth the expectations for the ranks of associate professor and professor in the discipline or subdisciplines represented in that department.

Departmental Standards for Tenured Faculty Review

The following departments have departmental criteria for tenured reviews approved by the College as consistent with the University and Collegiate Criteria.

 



Processes for Five-year Peer Review

There are two kinds of tenured faculty review process, the standard and the extended (see below).

Standard Review Process

Review committee for a Standard Five-year Peer Review

The DEO, in consultation with the faculty member under review, appoints the committee and a committee chair.  The review is performed by a committee of at least two tenured faculty members in CLAS at or above the rank of the individual under review, at least one of whom is at the rank of professor.  The committee may include all departmental faculty at or above rank.  The DEO and collegiate or university administrators may not serve as members of the review committee.

Materials to be reviewed in the Standard Five-year Peer Review

(a) An updated curriculum vitae is required for the review.

(b) The review committee performs at least one classroom observation and assesses teaching materials, student evaluations, and other evidence of the quality of teaching and student mentoring in the period since the previous five year peer review.  (Under College policy, evaluations of teaching must be solicited from students at the end of every course. All faculty must obtain these evaluations and keep them on file as evidence of teaching effectiveness. )

(c) The DEO and/or the review committee may request additional materials from the candidate and these materials must be listed on the Colleges's Summary Assessment form for tenured faculty reviews.

Steps in the Standard Five-year Review Process

  • The review is conducted using the unit’s standards for tenured faculty review, as approved by the College and the Provost.
  • The review is conducted in the spring semester.
  • By May 1, the peer review committee transmits the review to the DEO, using the College’s “Summary Assessment” form for tenured faculty.
  • Within three working days, the DEO transmits the summary assessment to the faculty member under review. 
  • Within five working days of receiving the summary assessment, the DEO discusses the summary assessment with the faculty member.
  • Within five working days of discussing the summary assessment with the DEO, the faculty member may respond in a letter to the DEO.
  • By the last working day in May, the DEO submits the "Summary Assessment" to the Executive Associate Dean. The DEO also submits the curriculum vitae on which the review was based and the faculty member's response, if any, to the review. All items will be submitted to the Dean's Office via Workflow.
  • In the special case where the Dean, in consultation with the DEO, concludes on the basis of the standard peer review’s findings that the faculty member's performance has fallen for a significant period of time below the expected standard of performance for the unit, the procedures outlined in the UI Policy on Tenured Faculty Review (Operations Manual, III-10.7.d) will be followed.

Extended Review Process

The faculty member, the DEO, or the Dean may request an extended review.  An extended review may be an opportunity for faculty to demonstrate their excellent performance over the past five years.

The Dean will consult the DEO before deciding whether the extended review process should be used in the following cases:

  • if the faculty member scheduled for review has had annual salary increases significantly below the departmental average for the period since the previous  five-year review and/or
  • if annual reviews since the previous five-year review indicate the faculty member has not met departmental performance standards.

A sample letter is available here that may be addressed to a faculty member at the outset of a tenured faculty review to be conducted according to the extended review process.

Review Committee in an Extended Five-year Peer Review

The DEO, in consultation with the faculty member under review, appoints the committee and a committee chair.  The review is performed by a committee of at least two tenured faculty members in CLAS at or above the rank of the individual under review, at least one of whom is at the rank of professor.  The committee may include all departmental faculty at or above rank.  The DEO may, after consultation with the individual under review and the College, appoint a faculty member from another department to serve on the review committee. The DEO and collegiate or university administrators may not serve as members of the review committee.

Materials to be Reviewed in an Extended Five-year Review

(a) The faculty member submits a self-assessment, in the form of a narrative, not to exceed 1,000 words, of his/her efforts over the previous five years and projected activities over the subsequent five years.

(b) An updated curriculum vitae is required for the review.

(c) The review committee performs at least one classroom observation and assesses teaching materials, student evaluations, and other evidence of the quality of teaching and student mentoring in the period since the previous five year peer review.

(d) The review committee receives the materials from the faculty member’s most recent five-year peer review, and the salary history prepared by the Office of the Dean.

(e) The DEO and/or the review committee may request additional materials from the candidate and these materials must be listed on the College’s “Summary Assessment” form for tenured faculty reviews.

Steps in an Extended Five-year Review

  • The review is conducted using the unit’s standards for tenured faculty review, as approved by the College and the Provost.
  • By May1, the review committee submits to the DEO a signed report (recommended length, one to two pages)and a completed "Summary Assessment" form for tenured faculty reviews. The committee's report must include recommendations to the faculty member, the department, and the College regarding expectations for activities over the next five years.
  • Within three working days, the DEO transmits the summary assessment form and review report to the faculty member under review. 
  • The DEO discusses all the review materials with the reviewee and then summarizes the actions that will follow from the review, using the CLAS form "DEO's Recommendations of Actions to Be Taken as a Result of an Extended Peer Review." The reviewee reads this summary and signs it before the review materials are submitted to the Dean's Office.
  • Within five working days of receiving the summary assessment, the reviewee has the right to respond to the DEO, and that response will also be forwarded to the Dean's Office.
  • By the last working day in May, the DEO submits the following review materials to the College:

(a) the "Cover Sheet for Extended Review of Tenured Faculty,"
(b) the response (if any) of the faculty member to the report of and summary assessment of the review committee and/or to the "DEO's Recommendations of Actions to Be Taken as a Result of an Extended Peer Review,"
(c) the completed form "DEO's Recommendations of Actions to Be Taken as a Result of an Extended Peer Review,”
(d) the CLAS form "Summary Assessment for Five-Year Peer Review of Tenured Faculty," completed by the review committee .
(e) the signed report of the Review Committee (recommended length, one to two pages),
(f) the faculty member's self-assessment of research, teaching, and service efforts over the previous five years and projected activities over the next five years (not to exceed 1,000 words), and
(g) the faculty member's curriculum vitae that was used in the review.

• The Dean responds in writing to extended five-year peer reviews, stating the outcomes of the review

Outcomes of the Five-year Peer Review

Among the actions that follow from the review, the Dean may ask the faculty member for a progress report at a specified time following the conclusion of the review, to ensure that recommendations from the review are being acted upon and goals established during the review are being achieved.

If the Dean, on the advice of the peer review committee and in consultation with the DEO, concludes that the faculty member’s performance has been persistently below the expectations expressed in the departmental standards for tenured faculty review, then the “special case procedures” outlined in the University Policy on Five Year Peer review of Tenured Faculty (Operations Manual, III.10.7.d] will be followed.

A faculty member who believes that she or he has been treated unfairly at any point during the five-year peer review process may seek redress of her or his grievance under the Faculty Dispute Procedures (UI Operations Manual III.29.6).

Reviews of Jointly Appointed Faculty

For faculty members holding joint appointments, the primary and secondary units should collaborate to produce a single review. If the Dean or the faculty member requests that an extended review of a jointly appointed faculty member be scheduled, both DEOs meet with the Executive Associate Dean to discuss the review process.

For reviews of faculty jointly appointed in another college, the two units should collaborate in a joint review that assesses the faculty member's entire contribution to the University's mission. The review report(s) should be forwarded to the deans of both colleges.