Authority: Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost
History: First Issued: January 8, 2010. Last Revised: July 21, 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 – Statement of Faculty Responsibilities
NCSU REG05.20.10 – Evaluation of Teaching
Contact Info: Department Head (919-513-6440)
This rule describes standards and procedures of the Department of Population Health and Pathobiology 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 control. 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.
2. POST TENURE REVIEW COMMITTEE (PTRC)
The PTRC will be comprised of at least five members of the Department Voting Faculty (tenured Associate and full Professors) of the Department of Population Health and Pathobiology who will be elected annually for two year staggered terms from and by that body. All tenured faculty members in the department are eligible to serve on the PTRC, unless they will be reviewed during the term. The PTRC will be composed of the eligible faculty members receiving the highest number of votes, with the number of committee members (a minimum of 5) determined by the number of reviews to be completed, with no more than two reviews assigned to any one member of the PTRC as primary reviewer. During the first year of implementation one-half of the elected members will be randomly selected to serve a one-year term to establish a staggered turnover of PTRC membership. The Department Head is not eligible to serve on the PTRC. At least one member of PTRC should be an Associate Professor when someone from that rank is being reviewed. Any member of the PTR that has served a term cannot serve a consecutive term. A Chairperson for the committee will be elected by the committee for the following year among the members serving their first year. The PHP Department will hold an election for new members (must be an Associate or Full Professor) of the committee in the spring for a July 1 appointment. All individuals involved in the post-tenure review process are required to receive post tenure review training. This is inclusive of peer-reviewers, faculty members under review, and the department head. A signed copy of the “Attestation of Completion” certificate for each person involved in the PTR process should be submitted to the executive assistant. The certificate will be a part of the PTR packet submitted to the Dean. The deadline for completion of online training is December 15.
2.2 Meeting Schedule
The PTRC Chair will schedule all meetings, coordinate with the Department Head, and prepare and transmit reports from the committee to the Head and to the faculty members reviewed.
The PTRC Chair will meet with the Department Head early in the fall semester to learn who will be reviewed during that year and what the schedule will be. The main review will be held in the January and February after the Department has assembled the required materials, as set forth in section 5.2 of NCSU REG05.20.04 – Post Tenure Review of Faculty, from each faculty member to be reviewed. The deadline for completion of the PTRC report to the PHP Department Head is March 1.
3. 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. The deadline for submission of completed documentation by PTR candidate is December 15.
4. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
4.1 Standards for Associate Professor
Associate Professors are to be evaluated to determine if they are performing the realms of responsibility set forth in their Statement of Faculty Responsibility at the Associate Professor standard as set forth in the Department’s Rule on Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Standards and Procedures. They must present evidence that they are making progress toward achieving the standards for promotion to full professor as set forth in the Academic Tenure Policy and college and departmental reappointment, promotion and tenure rules. An evaluation of “meets expectations, does not meet expectations or exceeds expectations” shall be made as part of the final report to the PHP Department Head.
4.2 Standards for Professor
Professors are to be evaluated to determine if they are performing the realms of responsibility set forth in their Statement of Faculty Responsibility at the standard set forth in the Department’s Rule on Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Standards and Procedures. They must present evidence that they are maintaining the standards for promotion to full professor as set forth in the Academic Tenure Policy and college and departmental reappointment, promotion and tenure rules. An evaluation of “meets expectations, does not meet expectations or exceeds expectations” shall be made as part of the final report to the PHP Department Head. The expectation is that a Professor should demonstrate a sustained effort, through innovative peer-reviewed contributions in a major focus area and will continue to maintain an international reputation and outstanding leadership in his/her focus area. Professors should demonstrate outstanding leadership within the department and college by participating on committees, mentorship programs, graduate student/post-doctoral training, and/or student teaching. Professors may also make significant contributions to the department and college by serving in major administrative roles
4.3 In order to “exceed expectations” the faculty member must significantly and consistently exceed the standards set forth in the Statement of Faculty Responsibility (SME). Faculty performance that exceeds expectations must demonstrate sustained and clearly recognizable excellence across the entire five years of the review period in at least one area of teaching, scholarship, and service that corresponds to a significant area of effort distribution as defined in the SME. This accomplishment must be consistent with the increased expectations associated with the ranks of Associate and Full Professor, respectively.