Five Year Review Process (PPR) for Faculty

POLICY INFORMATION
Major Functional Area (MFA): Office of Academic Affairs
Policy Title: Five Year Review Process (PPR)
Responsible Executive (RE): Provost and Vice President
Sponsoring Organization (SO): Office of Academic Affairs
Dates: Effective Date: May 5, 2011
Revised: July 20, 2011
Annual Review: July 20, 2012

 

I. POLICY STATEMENT

The Five-Year Review (Periodic Performance Review, or PPR) Process is an internal review conducted by the colleges for all continuing faculty (tenured, tenure-track, and non-tenure track appointments). The Idaho State Board of Education requires five-year reviews of all tenured faculty members (SBOE Policies and Procedures, Section II.G.6.g), whereas the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU) requires a comprehensive review at least every five years of all faculty members, i.e., tenured, tenure-track, and non-tenure track (NWCCU Standard 2.B.6, www.nwccu.org).

II. AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The Office of Academic Affairs has the authority and responsibility to update and review this policy as necessary in consultation with the faculty.

III. PROCEDURES TO IMPLEMENT

Requests for changes to this policy should be forwarded to the Office of Academic Affairs and presented to the Council of Deans. Proposed changes will be posted for review by the faculty. The President has the final approval.

  • Idaho State University Process

    The procedures outlined here are intended to assure fair and equitable treatment of faculty members throughout Idaho State University during their periodic reviews, and to ensure confidence that review recommendations will be fairly and equitably applied.

    • The academic performance of every faculty member will be evaluated at five (5) year intervals through the Five-Year Review Process.
    • The focus of the Five-Year Review at Idaho State University is to provide guidance for continuing and meaningful faculty development; to assist a faculty member to enhance professional skills and goals; to refocus academic and professional efforts; and to assure that faculty members are meeting their academic responsibilities. If any deficiencies in academic performance are identified, a plan for professional development must be designed.
    • Each academic unit (e.g., division, college, school, library, etc.) shall establish guidelines for Five-Year Reviews that are consistent with the Governing Policies and Procedures of the Idaho State Board of Education and with the policy set forth in this document. These guidelines should clearly outline the process by which Five-Year Review Committees should be established and operated.
    • The Colleges will notify Department Chairs during August of the list of faculty members due for a Five-Year Review that following academic year. Department Chairs will create Five-Year Review Committees according to the requirements set forth by their colleges and by this document.
    • Five-Year Reviews will address the sustained productivity of faculty members in the areas of teaching, research, professional service, and other assigned duties. Five-Year Reviews will utilize the Idaho State University Tenure and Promotion Application Form (not all sections of the form will apply to the workload expectations of all faculty members; lecturers, for example, may need to address only teaching). Review committees should consider the entire breadth of a faculty member’s contributions, while paying special attention to the most recent five-year period. Department chairs will use the “Periodic Performance Review Faculty Evaluation Form” to evaluate faculty members for the Five-Year Review.
    • While this policy does not require that external reviews be conducted as part of the Five-Year Review process, individual colleges may choose to incorporate them into their college procedures.
    • The review process for Five-Year Reviews should adhere to the following progression. Reviewers at each level should have access to the recommendations made at previous levels. At each stage of the review process, the faculty member under review will have five working days to respond to the written recommendation. The faculty member’s response will accompany all documents forwarded to the next level of review. All of the reviewers’ recommendations and responses from the faculty member under review will be forwarded to the Provost. At each level, either a vote of the group or a recommendation from the administrator must be made. All votes must be accompanied with a statement of rationale for the vote.
      • Department committee
      • Department chair
      • College/school committee
      • Dean of the college or division
      • Provost
    • As stated in SBOE policy, tenure and promotion evaluations take the place of periodic evaluations (Five-Year Reviews), when applicable: “Generally, the promotion from the rank of associate professor to full professor is considered no earlier than the fifth full year after attaining the rank of associate professor, which is generally contemporaneous with the granting of tenure. In such cases, if review for promotion to full professor is scheduled during the fifth, sixth or seventh full year after the award of tenure then the promotion review may, if it meets substantially similar criteria and goals of the post tenure review, take the place of the periodic performance review described here” (SBOE Policies and Procedures, Section II.G.6.g).
    • The outcome of the Five-Year Review may be that 1) the faculty member is judged to be performing at acceptable levels and thus no further review or action is needed; 2) there are concerns about the faculty member’s performance; consequently, a plan for professional development must be developed, and there will be a re-review in three years; or 3) there are significant deficiencies noted; as a result, a detailed one-year remediation plan must be put into place, and a final assessment completed at the end of the remediation year.
    • As stated in both SBOE and ISU policy, an unsatisfactory Five-Year Review shall constitute adequate cause for dismissal.
  • As stated in the Accreditation Handbook of the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU) Policy 4.1 Faculty Evaluation, “the requirement for the continuing evaluation of faculty performance is to be accomplished through the joint efforts of faculty and administration. The retention of a competent faculty helps ensure that the mission of an institution of higher education is being accomplished in a manner consistent with its accredited status.”