Overview: Faculty members who achieve tenure at Rhodes College continue to develop as effective teachers and active scholars and as members who support in their service work the educational mission of the College. Tenured associate professors have a post-tenure review every six years, with a mid-period update at the third year. Tenured full professors have a post-promotion review every six years. The objective of these reviews is to provide opportunities for reflection and feedback on the tenured faculty member’s continued growth in teaching, scholarship, and service, and to provide a framework for discussions of long-term career planning, including, in the case of associate professors, promotion to professor.
Excellence as defined in Section VIII of the College Handbook remains the benchmark for tenured faculty. Excellence in the post-tenure period entails:
- A level of teaching effectiveness that maintains or exceeds the excellence required for tenure;
- Continued scholarly achievement, demonstrated by activities and outcomes appropriate for a recognized scholar in the field;
- Sustained and effective academic citizenship commensurate with level of experience.
The process for post-tenure review: During the first full academic year of service following the receipt of tenure, the faculty member prepares a non-binding prospectus of professional development for the next six years. This prospectus is written in consultation with the department/program Chair and filed with the Office of Academic Affairs. The prospectus addresses all three areas of evaluation. At six-year intervals thereafter until promotion to the rank of professor, the faculty member prepares a two-part professional development document, consisting of a reflection on the faculty member’s growth in teaching, scholarship, and service over the previous six-year period, and a prospectus for the next six years. The professional development document provides a framework for a review of the faculty member’s professional growth.
In the third year of each post-tenure review cycle, the faculty member prepares an update of the professional development document, indicating progress to date as well as any changes or updates to the prospectus. The faculty member presents this update and a current curriculum vitae to the department/program Chair. The department/program Chair also reviews whatever evidence of effective teaching seems appropriate to insure that the faculty member is continuing to meet the College’s standards of excellence in teaching. The faculty member and the department/program Chair meet to discuss the update along with any issues that may have arisen concerning teaching. The department/program Chair then sends a brief statement to the Vice President for Academic Affairs summarizing the outcome of that conversation. In the event that there are issues that appear to demand attention, the Vice President for Academic Affairs may request a meeting with the department/program Chair and/or the faculty member.
In early January of the post-tenure review year, the faculty member creates a portfolio containing:
- The professional development document
- A current curriculum vitae that includes
- All scholarly or creative activity
- Courses taught
- Service to the College and the profession.
- Representative samples of course syllabi, exams, and assignments for courses taught during the previous six-year period, a list of any additional teaching (Directed Inquiries, undergraduate research/creative activity, honors research/creative activity, etc.), and a list of any new courses taught.
- Student evaluations from classes taught during the previous six-year period. Tenured faculty are required to have student evaluations conducted in one course each semester, selected in consultation with the department/program Chair to make sure that all types of teaching performed by the faculty member are represented in the review.
In addition to the portfolio, the department/program Chair reviews final grades given for all courses taught by the faculty member during the previous six-year period. This information is provided by the Data Services Office.
The department/program Chair meets with the faculty member to discuss the professional development document and the faculty member’s progress toward achieving career goals. The department/program Chair then writes an assessment of the faculty member’s professional growth which is sent to the Vice President for Academic Affairs, usually late in January. The Vice President or a designated representative and the department/program Chair meet in mid-February to discuss points of agreement and disagreement in the assessment. The Vice President for Academic Affairs or designated representative conveys in writing the results of these discussions to the faculty member being evaluated, with a copy to the department/program Chair. The faculty member is welcome to meet with the Vice President for Academic Affairs or designated representative, if desired, to discuss the outcome of the review; the department/program Chair may be invited to this meeting at the discretion of the Vice President for Academic Affairs or designated representative.
The process for post-promotion review: At six-year intervals after promotion to the rank of professor, the faculty member prepares a professional development document, consisting of a reflection on the faculty member’s growth in teaching, scholarship, and service over the previous six-year period, and a non-binding prospectus for the next six years. The prospectus may propose shifts in emphasis between scholarship or creative activity and service, as appropriate for the faculty member’s career trajectory. In early January the faculty member provides to the department/program Chair the professional development document and a current curriculum vitae. The department/program Chair meets with the faculty member to discuss the professional development document and the faculty member’s progress toward achieving career goals. The department/program Chair then writes an assessment of the faculty member’s career growth which is sent to the Vice President for Academic Affairs, usually late in January. The Vice President for Academic Affairs or a designated representative and the department/program Chair meet in mid-February to discuss points of agreement and disagreement in the assessment. The Vice President for Academic Affairs or designated representative conveys in writing the results of these discussions to the faculty member being evaluated, with a copy to the department/program Chair. The faculty member is welcome to meet with the Vice President for Academic Affairs or designated representative, if desired, to discuss the outcome of the review; the department/program Chair may be invited to this meeting at the discretion of the Vice President for Academic Affairs or designated representative.
Reviews of department chairs: If the faculty member under review is a department/program Chair, the review normally will be conducted by some other senior member of the department/program designated by the Vice President for Academic Affairs.
Remediation: In rare and extreme cases, in either the post-tenure review or the post-promotion review, a faculty member may receive an assessment indicating that the faculty member has failed to meet the College’s standards of excellence in one or more areas of evaluation. In such cases, the faculty member will develop, in consultation with the Vice President for Academic Affairs and the department/program Chair, a plan for improvement that addresses the area(s) of deficiency and a timeline for improvement. In accordance with a schedule specified by the timeline, the Vice President for Academic Affairs and the department/program Chair will evaluate the faculty member’s work in removing the deficiency. After two years, if the Vice President for Academic Affairs determines that the faculty member has not shown evidence of improvement in the designated area(s), the salary of the faculty member will continue without increases until the level of achievement is deemed by the Vice President for Academic Affairs to be appropriate; that is, the salary will be frozen at the level of salary in the second year after the review. At the conclusion of the period specified in the timeline, should performance not meet the level of achievement specified in the plan for improvement, the Vice President for Academic Affairs will determine an appropriate response.
At the time of a negative review, the faculty member may request a review of the matter. The Tenure and Promotion Committee will hear the petition from the member of the Faculty, and the Committee will make a recommendation to the Vice President for Academic Affairs. The Committee’s recommendation will become part of the official record maintained at the College.