• Home
  • Post-tenure Review Criteria and Procedures, Department of Germanic Languages & Literatures

Post-tenure Review Criteria and Procedures, Department of Germanic Languages & Literatures

Policy
Purpose: 

To articulate the criteria and procedures for post-tenure review for the Department of Germanic Languages & Literatures.

Applies to: 

Tenured faculty in the Department of Germanic Languages & Literatures

Campus: 
Lawrence
Policy Statement: 

General Principles: In accordance with Board of Regents requirements (II.C.8), Article 7 Section 4 of the Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations, and the University Policy on Post-tenure Review, the Department of Germanic Languages and Literatures, hereafter referred to as the GLL, has adopted these expectations and procedures for conducting post-tenure review. Post-tenure review is a process for periodic peer evaluation of faculty performance that provides an opportunity for a long-term assessment of a faculty member’s accomplishments and future directions in the areas of teaching/advising, scholarship, and service.

Post-tenure review must be conducted in a manner that respects the rights of faculty members involved, including academic freedom, tenure, and due process. In addition, all those involved in the evaluation process must recognize that it is a confidential personnel matter and take appropriate steps to protect confidentiality.

Period for Review: Faculty members will be reviewed once every seven years following the receipt of tenure with the review occurring in the unit(s) that conducts their annual evaluation. Post-tenure review covers the seven-year period leading up to the review, including the six prior annual evaluation letters and activities since the last annual evaluation. The cycle is restarted if a faculty member is evaluated for promotion or is awarded a distinguished professorship.  The time period when a faculty member is on medical or familial leave or that would otherwise be excluded when computing time in rank does not count toward this period. In addition, time serving as department chair, program director, dean or associate dean, or other administrative position subject to administrative review is excluded. The review may be postponed if it falls in a year when the faculty member is on leave. Faculty members on phased retirement or whose retirement date has been approved by the university will be exempt from review under this policy. The dean of the College will notify faculty members scheduled for post-tenure review no later than March 15th in the spring semester preceding the academic year of review. 

Unit Expectations: All tenured faculty members must meet academic responsibilities in the areas of teaching/advising, scholarship, and service. Unless otherwise specified by the job description or differential allocation of effort, the ordinary allocation of effort is 40% teaching/advising, 40% scholarship, and 20% service.

The GLL has defined its standards and expectations for teaching/advising, scholarship, and service in its annual evaluation procedures. The expectations for post-tenure review are consistent with these standards, with overall productivity commensurate to the seven-year period under review. The following specific criteria shall apply for purposes of post-tenure review.

            Criteria for Meeting Expectations in Teaching/Advising:

Each faculty member is expected to participate actively in the teaching mission of the department. While faculty are expected to cover a broad range of courses in a department such as ours, we understand that some will be more involved in the courses of the proficiency sequence, the undergraduate majors program, the graduate program, the Dutch program, or the Scandinavian program depending on specialization and interest. The training and coordinating of graduate teaching assistants is also an important aspect of our teaching mission. Normal teaching load for faculty is four courses each academic year; distribution of effort is normally 40%.

In addition, faculty members are expected to be involved from time to time in working individually with students in an investigation and conference course, especially for departmental honors. Graduate faculty members are expected to direct master's theses and doctoral dissertations. Faculty members are regularly expected to serve on examination committees for candidates in the M.A. and Ph.D. programs as well as for undergraduate students completing departmental honors. Faculty are also expected to serve as mentors to one or more graduate teaching assistants each semester, entailing classroom visits and consultation about teaching methods.

Student advising is expected of faculty members as part of their teaching responsibilities. All faculty members are assigned advisees in the graduate program and are expected to serve as mentors for those students. Some faculty will be given assignments in advising undergraduate majors. Our faculty members are frequently called upon to advise students from a variety of disciplines regarding opportunities for foreign study.

            Criteria for Meeting Expectations in Research and Creative Activity:

Each faculty member in our department is expected to be engaged in a program of research and scholarship in the field of Germanic studies. A faculty member's accomplishments in the area of research not only maintain one's competence as a teacher but also provide a service to the discipline and the profession as well as society in general. Continued productivity from the time of one's formal entry into a professional academic career--after completion of the dissertation--is expected. Competence in the area of research can be demonstrated when the results of that research are submitted for professional evaluation, review, and criticism by peers through recognized media. Publication in books and refereed professional journals are generally deemed to be the most significant measures of scholarly productivity. Publication of edited texts, collections of essays, and yearbooks are evidence of scholarly activity, as are scholarly reviews of books for the profession. Presentation of the results of on-going research at professional meetings and participation at such meetings is viewed as an important aspect of each faculty member's research activity. Recognition of a faculty member's research is also indicated by the ability to obtain competitive awards and grants from external agencies. Normal distribution of effort for scholarly activity for faculty is 40%.

            Criteria for Meeting Expectations in Service:

As members of the department, the university community, the academic profession, and the larger community, faculty are expected to engage in a variety of service activities. In addition to regular departmental committee assignments, faculty members are encouraged to seek positions in committees at the College and University level as well as in professional organizations representing the various facets of Germanic studies. Special service responsibilities are borne by those who are requested to serve as Director of Graduate Studies, Director of the Max Kade Center for German-American Studies, or as one of the directors of our two Summer Language Institutes in Eutin and Holzkirchen. Other administrative work must also be recognized within this context such as serving as acting departmental Chair. Some faculty will be able to provide service to the greater community through the organization of exchange programs within the framework of the sister-city relationship between Lawrence and Eutin or in the context of the outreach programs of the Kansas Humanities Council. Normally, distribution of effort in the area of service for faculty is 20%.

            Relation to the Annual Evaluation:

PTR will be conducted by the Promotion and Tenure Committee, which for the purpose of PTR includes all of the tenured faculty whose primary appointment is in the GLL. Since the annual evaluation is handled by a smaller, representative committee, the post-tenure review will be conducted separately from the annual evaluation, but the post-tenure review file is incorporated into the documentation for the annual evaluation.

The committee report will be considered as part of the annual evaluation process and the chair will discuss the review with the faculty member in conjunction with that process. This discussion should concentrate on the future professional development of the faculty member with an aim toward enhancing meritorious work and improving less satisfactory performance, including adoption of a performance improvement plan, if necessary. Any action on the review that is within the scope of the Faculty Evaluation Policy must be taken under that policy.

Joint Appointments. The faculty member will provide both units with copies of the Faculty Member’s Statement section of the Post-Tenure Review File (reflecting the representative effort in each unit) and a current curriculum vitae. The review goes forward with each unit preparing a separate committee evaluation summary and considerations by each chair and/or director to the dean. Each unit will submit their review materials directly to the College Dean’s Office. In the case of a jointly appointed faculty and unclassified academic staff member outside of the College, the primary unit is responsible for the administrative protocols of engaging the secondary unit in the solicitation and collection of feedback relative to the evaluation of performance expectations in the secondary unit.

Review Committee: The post-tenure review is conducted by the Promotion and Tenure Committee, which shall be selected as provided in the Promotion and Tenure Procedures of the GLL.

No person may serve on the committee if his or her spouse or partner is scheduled for review. If the chair/director is the spouse or partner of the faculty member under review, the “Chair or Director Evaluation Summary” shall be conducted by the Divisional Associate Dean. A committee member who believes that there may be a conflict of interest should withdraw from the committee. If a faculty member who is undergoing review believes that there is a conflict of interest, he or she may object to the inclusion of a member. If the member declines to withdraw, the remaining committee members shall consider the basis for the alleged conflict and decide the matter. If a committee member withdraws or is removed based on a conflict of interest, the chair will name a replacement.

Preparation of the File: Review will be conducted on the basis of a file that summarizes a faculty member’s teaching/advising, scholarship, and service. In contrast to evaluation for promotion and tenure, copies of publications and original student evaluations are not required. Also, outside reviews of scholarship should not be submitted.

Using the Faculty Member Statement, the faculty member under review shall provide a brief narrative statement of his or her accomplishments in teaching/advising, scholarship, and service during the review period as they relate to his or her long-term career path and goals. In addition, the faculty member shall submit a current curriculum vitae and a list of additional activities not covered on the curriculum vitae. The chair will furnish copies of the faculty member’s annual evaluation letters for the six years during the review period, including responses by the faculty member.

Evaluation and Report: The committee will review the file and evaluate the faculty member’s overall performance and his or her contributions in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service. Applying the expectations defined above, the committee will determine whether the faculty member’s performance in each area, as well as whether his or her overall performance meets expectations, exceeds expectations, or fails to meet expectations. In making its evaluations, the committee must bear in mind that (1) faculty members have differing responsibilities and make different kinds of contributions to the mission of the GLL, the College, and the University; (2) a faculty member’s activities vary over time according to his or her strengths, interests, and career path; and (3) innovative work may take time to reach fruition and may sometimes fail.

Using the Unit Committee Report, the committee will prepare a written report summarizing its evaluation. The report should provide a narrative description of the faculty member’s activities, an explanation of the committee’s ratings, and recommendations or suggestions for acknowledgement of contributions and future development of the faculty member. The committee will provide a copy of the report to the faculty member, who may submit a written response for inclusion in the post-tenure review file before it is forwarded to the chair.

Consideration by the Chair/Director: The committee’s report (along with any faculty response) will be provided to the chair. Using the Chair/Director Evaluation Summary, if the chair agrees with the report, he or she will indicate that agreement in writing to the faculty member and place a copy in the post-tenure review file. If the chair or director disagrees with the committee’s evaluation, he or she shall explain the reasons for any disagreement in writing, with a copy to the faculty member and the committee. The chair may ask the committee to provide additional information or reconsider the review. If the chair disagrees with a positive evaluation by the committee, the faculty member may submit a written response. The chair will forward the file to the dean of the College. Post-tenure review files are due in the College Dean’s Office by no later than noon, on the second Friday of March.

Consideration by the Dean: The faculty member’s post-tenure review file, including the unit committee’s report (along with any faculty response) and the chair’s agreement or disagreement, is forwarded to the dean. Post-tenure review files are due in the College Dean’s Office by no later than noon, on the second Friday in March. The dean will consider the report and using the Dean’s Evaluation Summary, express his or her agreement or disagreement in the same manner as the chair. Following the completion of review by the dean, if the dean agrees with the report, he or she will indicate that agreement in writing to the faculty member and place a copy in the file. If dean disagrees with the committee’s evaluation, he or she shall explain the reasons for any disagreement in writing, with a copy to the faculty member and the unit committee. The dean may ask the committee to provide additional information or reconsider the review. If the dean disagrees with a positive evaluation by the unit committee, the faculty member may submit a written response. The dean will forward a summary of post-tenure review outcomes and copies of the post-tenure review files to the Provost, to ultimately be placed in the faculty member’s personnel file.

Appeals: Following the completion of the review by the dean, if a disagreement between the committee and the chair or dean cannot be resolved or if the faculty member wishes to appeal an evaluation of “fails to meet expectations” in the overall evaluation or any category of responsibility, the matter will be handled as an appeal under the GLL’s annual Faculty Evaluation Policy.

Report to the Provost: The dean will provide a summary of the results in the College and copies of the post-tenure review file to the Provost. The post-tenure review file will be placed in the faculty member’s personnel file.

Contact: 

Department of Germanic Languages & Literatures
University of Kansas
Wescoe Hall 1445 Jayhawk Blvd
Room 2080
Lawrence, Kansas 66045-7594
german@ku.edu

Department Chairperson
785-864-4803

Approved by: 
Department of Germanic Languages & Literatures Faculty
Approved on: 
Friday, August 15, 2014
Effective on: 
Friday, August 15, 2014
Review Cycle: 
Annual (As Needed)
Keywords: 
Post-tenure review, seven-year review, faculty review, faculty performance, PtR, GERM, GLL
Review, Approval & Change History: 

10/12/2015: Per the Interim Dean of the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences, the following was added to the template under Committee Review: If the chair/director is the spouse or partner of the faculty member under review, the “Chair or Director Evaluation Summary” shall be conducted by the Divisional Associate Dean.  Also added Dean’s review/acceptance under “Rank/Status/Change/History.”

08/28/2015: Added new template language to “Period for Review.”

08/18/2015: Updated links to CLAS PtR Forms

04/24/2015: Updated CLAS PtR forms and added links to each form within the policy statement.

04/02/2015: Fixed broken link to Board of Regents Policy Manual.

02/18/2015: Updated joint appointment section to include new boilerplate language.

12/18/2014: Updated to provide the current link to the Board of Regents Policy Manual.

11/21/2014: Updated to provide the current link to the Board of Regents Policy Manual.

08/15/2014: Reviewed and accepted by the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences Dean’s Office

08/15/2014: Approved by GLL Faculty Vote

Personnel: Faculty/Academic Staff Categories: 
Performance
School/College Policy Categories: 
Additional Policies

Can't Find What You're Looking For?
Policy Library Search
KU Today
One of 34 U.S. public institutions in the prestigious Association of American Universities
44 nationally ranked graduate programs.
—U.S. News & World Report
Top 50 nationwide for size of library collection.
—ALA
23rd nationwide for service to veterans —"Best for Vets," Military Times