| University of Houston Faculty Senate -
ARCHIVE DOCUMENT (from 1996) |
VI. Modifications to the Tenure System
In an attempt to make the tenure system more effective and flexible, institutions have sought to modify tenure policies. Modifications include:
Modifications to the ways in which tenure is conferred:
An annual review already exists at the University of Houston, which includes both peer and student evaluation. According to the Faculty Handbook, incompetent, neglectful, or dishonest faculty are not sheltered by tenure. However, there seems to be a perception both inside the academy and out that tenured faculty are "untouchable." Many claim that if institutions only monitored their existing policies there would be no need to further modify their tenure system. Some institutions have changed policies that govern the removal of tenured faculty to provide a clearer statement of cause for dismissal.
This is the most common modification to the tenure system and yet opinions on the effectiveness of PTR policies are mixed. The American Association for Higher Education is currently engaged in a two year project to study faculty careers which includes the effectiveness of post-tenure reviews.
Most PTR policies state that evaluations occur automatically. The average PTR cycle is five years (ranging from two years to ten). Other PTR's are triggered by two consecutive annual evaluations of unsatisfactory performance, failure to receive a merit increase two years in a row, or at the request of the faculty.
One PTR model requires probationary faculty to write a plan for professional growth and development one year prior to tenure review that becomes part of their tenure dossier. If granted tenure, faculty must update and extend the plan at least once every five years, although modifications can be made annually. At the conclusion of each five-year period, there is an evaluation to determine if the plan has been fulfilled.
PTR's differ in the consequences to unsatisfactory evaluations and how well these consequences are defined, including:
Research Institutions with Post Tenure Reviews:
Examples include: the Wisconsin System, Georgia System (note that the former chancellor of the Wisconsin System is now the chancellor of the Georgia System), Texas A&M System, University of Maryland, University of Kentucky, University of HawaiiÐManoa, University of California System
Post-tenure reviews are already carried out at UH, primarily through annual reviews for merit based salary increases. Simply adding another mandatory evaluation without first making the existing evaluation process more effective, would be a cosmetic solution at best. Faculty development should be a dynamic, on-going process for all rather than an imposed remedy for proven low performers. We may unintentionally cultivate our own problems by our narrow standards for excellence and current reward system. Strengthening the existing system by broadening the definition of faculty excellence to be more inclusive of the full range of faculty interest and ability, and identifying the responsibilities of faculty and administrators in the evaluation process would help insure an evaluation system that would be an effective tool for faculty development. This, in itself, may be the single most motivating factor to elevate faculty morale and productivity.
This modification serves to broaden the tenure system by requiring that tenure decisions be based on individual merit and institutional needs. "Departments develop a long-range plan that includes a statement of goals, an estimation of personnel needs based on enrollment projections, class size, and faculty/student ratios. Departments consider the congruence between departmental goals and current staff, and a general prognosis of tenure prospects for future faculty." Along these lines, the Keast Commission in 1973 recommended that each department, college, and institution develop a staffing plan to "project the age and tenure patterns of the present faculty, scheduled retirements, and other factors likely to influence the composition and distribution of the faculty, with due allowance for contingencies."
Caps are aimed at creating greater institutional flexibility. The burden is placed on probationary faculty. In particular, caps make it difficult to diversify and to include more women and minorities. The cap range is from 40-75% tenured.
This provides built-in flexibility for faculty members by extending the probationary period for typically one year, sometimes two. This provision is most utilized by women.
references:
Cathy Trower, "Tenure Snapshot," AAHE New Pathways: Faculty Careers and Employment for the 21st century, (1996)
Richard Chait and Andrew Ford, Beyond Traditional Tenure, (1982).