Authority: Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost
History: First Issued: December 15, 2009. Last Revised: July 22, 2016.
UNC Policy 400.3.3 Performance Review of Tenured Faculty
NCSU POL05.20.01 – Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Permanent Tenure
NCSU REG05.20.04 – Post Tenure Review of Faculty
NCSU REG05.20.27 – Statements of Mutual Expectations
NCSU REG05.20.10 – Evaluation of Teaching
Office of the Provost RPT Website
NC State Guide on Peer Review of Teaching
Contact Info: Department Head (919-515-2951)
This rule describes standards and procedures of the Department of Food, Bioprocessing and Nutrition Sciences for post tenure review of faculty. It supplements NC State University’s Academic Tenure Policy and Regulation on Post Tenure Review of Faculty. To the extent of any inconsistency, the Academic Tenure Policy and Post Tenure Review Regulation takes priority. The Department Head is responsible for assuring that the procedures as set forth in NCSU REG05.20.04 – Post Tenure Review of Faculty and this Rule are followed.
- POST TENURE REVIEW COMMITTEE (PTRC)
2.1. Selection of Committee
2.1.1 The PTRC will be composed of three tenured faculty with three-year terms.
2.1.2 All tenured faculty in the department are eligible to serve on the PTRC, unless they will be reviewed during the term.
2.1.3 The department head will recommend possible candidates for the PTRC to the tenured faculty for election.
2.1.4 The PTRC shall be elected in the spring prior to June 30.
2.1.5 The initial PTRC will have one member serving for a one-year term, one member serving for two years, and one member serving for three years.
2.1.6 The member with the one-year term will serve as the PTRC chair.
2.1.7 In following years, one new member will be elected to replace the PTRC member with the expiring term.
2.1.8 If a PTRC member leaves the committee in the middle of an academic year, the Department Head will ask for volunteers from the tenured faculty, and a vote to determine the replacement member will be conducted at the soonest possible faculty meeting thereafter.
2.2 Selection of Committee Chair
In any given academic year, the member of the PTRC who is serving for his/her last year will chair the committee. The PTRC Chair should familiarize himself or herself with the applicable committee policies and regulations and rule.
2.3 Meeting Schedule
2.3.1 At the beginning of each academic year, the PTRC and the department head, will review the names of faculty that are to be reviewed in the current academic year.
2.3.2 The Department Head will be responsible for informing faculty members who are scheduled to be reviewed.
2.3.3 The PTRC Committee Chair is responsible for scheduling the PTRC meetings and for providing the written results of each review to the Department Head.
- DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED TO THE PTRC
The documentation provided to the PTRC is set forth in section 5.2 of university NCSU REG05.20.04 – Post Tenure Review of Faculty.
- PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
4.1 Standards for Associate Professor
Associate Professors are to be evaluated to determine if they meet the expectations set forth in their Statement of Mutual Expectations. In the areas of teaching, research, extension and service, the following general criteria will serve as guidelines for evaluation of contributions for purposes of PTR review:
4.1.1 The individual demonstrates quality of teaching (encompassing both instruction and advising) by providing evidence of the following: (a.) the effective delivery of instruction to and the stimulation of learning by students and/or clients, (b.) the effort to improve courses or instructional programs, and (c.) the effective advising and mentoring of undergraduate and/or graduate students.
4.1.2 The individual demonstrates quality of research by providing evidence of (a.) furthering of, or original contributions, to knowledge through discovery or application resulting from the individual’s research and/or (b.) creative activities and productions that are related to the individual’s discipline.
4.1.3 The individual demonstrates quality of extension programming by providing evidence of (a.) contributions to the food processing industry that make use of the faculty member’s academic or professional expertise and/or (b.) contributions to enhancing the competencies of county extension faculty.
4.1.4 The individual demonstrates quality of service by (a.) contributions to the welfare of the department, college, university, or profession and (b.) professional contributions to local, state, federal agencies, and organizations.
4.2 Standards for Professor
Professors are to be evaluated to determine if they meet the expectations set forth in their Statement of Mutual Expectations. In the areas of teaching, research, extension and service, the general standards detailed above in sections 4.1.1 – 4.1.4 apply to the post tenure review of professors.
4.3. Standards for Exceeding Expectations
For a faculty member to “exceed expectations,” the faculty member must demonstrate a continued level of exemplary performance and achievement with documented high impact on the discipline in accordance with their Statement of Mutual Expectation. The recommendation and use of “exceeds” expectations is reserved for exceptional performance. Exemplary performance may encompass a variety of activities and accomplishments. Some examples include but are not limited to:
- Consistent peer-reviewed publications in excellent journals in excess of Statement of Mutual Expectations
- 2. Receipt of extramural funding from national/international sources
- 3. Consistent extramural funding beyond Statement of Mutual Expectations
- 4. Consistent development of IP or patents filed
- 5. High value inter-disciplinary collaborative activities
- 6. Teaching, research, and/or extension awards
- 7. High degree of stakeholder engagement and satisfaction as demonstrated by metrics of (i) number and quality of workshops/short courses developed/led; (ii)number of extension materials developed; (iii) direct positive stakeholder input or financial engagement
- 8. Exceptional performance in the classroom as evidenced by the metrics of (i) teaching effectiveness survey; (ii) teaching peer review; publications on pedagogy
- 9. A high degree of service illustrated at the national and/or international level, as evidenced by service on (i) executive boards; (ii) invitation-only high impact committees; or (iii) as a scientific journal editor
- 10. One or more leadership positions of national or international note