Sample Report of Decision:
Mandatory Tenure Review
[Note: All underlined text must be replaced as appropriate. The text of the document will differ, depending upon the faculty member and the department. In assessing the performance of faculty, departments must use standards-based criteria, and must include standards-based evidence in the Report of Decision. The information cited in this sample is illustrative only.]
Report of Decision of Assistant Professor Nobel Laureate by the Tenured Faculty of the Department of Liberal Studies, October xx, 20xx.
The tenured faculty of the Department of Liberal Studies met at 3:30 p.m. in Room 207 of the University Center, per the attached notice. Present: [list all those present].
It was moved and seconded (mover/seconder) that the meeting be CLOSED as permitted by Wisconsin Statutes 19.81-19.98. The motion was approved by a majority on a roll call vote [Closed session is not required for this meeting, but if closed session is chosen then list names for Ayes and Nays. This is the only vote during this meeting that requires a roll call vote].
CLOSED MEETING
Prior to the meeting, Dr. Laureate’s Portfolio was available in the department office. The Portfolio was brought to this meeting.
Dr. Laureate was invited to provide oral elaboration on the materials she had made available and to provide any other information she believed to be pertinent to the review process. The tenured faculty asked questions about teaching and service. A question was raised about the peer review of one of Dr. Laureate’s publications, and she responded that the article was peer reviewed and she can provide documentation if necessary. Dr. Laureate was excused at approximately 3:50 p.m.
The Liberal Studies Department and College of Liberal Arts Promotion and Tenure Standards specify a three-point performance rating scale for the categories of teaching, job performance in non-teaching assignments, research and creative activities, and professional and public service, with qualitative measures within each of the four categories. According to this scale, a “1” is defined as exceeds standards and is worthy of special recognition; a “2” is defined as meets standards; and a “3” is defined as does not meet standards. The standards of performance written at the department level meet or exceed those established at the constituency and university levels, in all categories of job performance. [Note: this is provided as an example. Departments must use the Promotion and Tenure standards that have been approved by their department and college in their assessment of the probationary faculty member’s performance.]
Teaching:
Dr. Laureate’s student evaluations, which arebased on a scale of 1-5, with 5highest,have averaged 4.2over the period of her probation. In addition, peer reviewers have consistently foundthat Dr. Laureateprovides clear, coherent, and varied instruction for her students and her pedagogical methods and materials effectively help students achieve the stated learning outcomes for her courses.In class, Dr. Laureate mixes instructional strategies,ranging fromlecture toproblem-solvingdiscussions and projects, adopting those strategies to students’ varied learning styles and her daily class objectives. Dr. Laureate’s advisees indicate that she takes special interest in their academic progress and their long-range goals. Dr. Laureate has served as a mentor in the McNair Scholars program and mentored four undergraduate research projects. Dr. Laureate has also served on three graduate students' thesis committees in theDepartment ofConservative Studies. Dr. Laureate participated in four LEARN Center workshops, and during the summer of 2007 she participated in the OPID Teaching Scholars program, completing a study of her students’ ability to determine underlying values in political discourse.
The Chair asked the tenured faculty to assess Dr. Laureate's teaching based on the three-point scale described above. By a show of hands, 5 tenured faculty voted a (2), and 3 tenured faculty voted a (1). A majority of the tenured faculty voted Dr. Laureate a (2—meets standards).
Job Performance in a Non-Teaching Assignment (Director of College Programs):
During the last year of her probationary period, Dr. Laureate was appointed to a one-quarter time position as the Director of College Programs. The Dean and a college review committee both submitted evaluations of Dr. Laureate’s performance in this role, and both evaluations were included in the Purple Book. Both reviews indicate that Dr. Laureate is effective in her Director position and demonstrates skills and knowledge relevant to the position. The Dean’s review lauds Dr. Laureate for quickly assuming a leadership role and helping the College make progress in identifying new academic programs to pursue.
The Chair asked the tenured faculty to assess Dr. Laureate's performance as Director of College Programs based on the three-point scale described above. By a show of hands, 7 tenured faculty voted a (2), and 1 tenured faculty voted a (3). A majority of the tenured faculty voted Dr. Laureate a (2—meets standards).
Research and Creative Activities:
Dr. Laureate’s article, “America’s Rhetorically Dysfunctional Discourse,” was published in the Journal of Conservative Thinking, apeer reviewed quarterly journal that is considered to be one of the top journals in her field.She also published “American Discourse: An Empirical Analysis” in the peer-reviewed Journal of Discourse Studies. She presented five papers at regional or national conferences, reporting on her studiesof thinking patterns among liberal and conservative constituencies. During her probationary period, Dr. Laureate also collaborated with colleagues in the Department of Conservative Studies, serving as the principal investigator for a three-year federal grant funded by the NEH. The accomplishments demonstrate that Dr. Laureate is achieving professional recognition in her discipline.
The Chair asked the tenured faculty to assess Dr. Laureate's research and creative activities based on the three-point scale described above. By a show of hands, 6 tenured faculty voted a (1), and 2 tenured faculty voted a (2). A majority of the tenured faculty voted Dr. Laureate a (1—exceeds standards).
Professional and Public Service:
Dr. Laureate is an active participant in governance at the department, college, and university levels on campus, most notably by chairing the Liberal Studies Department's Curriculum Committee for two years and serving on the College Curriculum Committee and Graduate Council for four years.She also served two years as a member of the Chancellor's Committee on Students with Disabilities. Based on these and other activities, we are confident that Dr. Laureate will continue to play a contributing role in faculty service. Dr. Laureate is active in her profession, serving three years as a member of the editorial board forthe National Liberal and Conservative Studies Association (NLCSA).In addition, she annually reviews conference proposals for regional and national conferences of the NLCSA. Finally, as a member of the Whitewater community, Dr.Laureate has served as a consultantfor the Whitewater High School History Departmentin its development of a balanced curriculum.
The Chair asked the tenured faculty to assess Dr. Laureate's professional and public service based on the three-point scale described above. By a show of hands, 3 tenured faculty voted a (1), and 5 tenured faculty voted a (2). A majority of the tenured faculty voted Dr. Laureate a (2—meets standards).
The Department of Liberal Studies finds that Dr. Nobel Laureate's performance meets or exceeds all department, college, and university standards for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor.She consistently fulfilled the balance of effort indicated in each of her annual Documents of Intent, making good progress toward tenure and promotion across each year in her probationary period.
Given Dr. Laureate's record of accomplishments, without reservation, the Department of Liberal Studiesvoted 8-0 to recommend Dr. Laureate for reappointment as an Associate Professor with tenure for the 20xx-20xx academic year.
[The following section must be included for an affirmative decision for reappointment, tenure, and promotion.] Per Personnel Rules III, C, 4, f, (h), Dr. Laureate has the right to submit a written rebuttal to the department’s Report of Decision or to the Reconsideration Report of Decision (III, D of the Personnel Rules). Dr. Laureate must notify the review party of the intent to write a rebuttal within 3(three) business days of the emailed date of the Report of Decision. The rebuttal must be received by the review party within 7 (seven) business days after the emailed date of the Report of Decision.
[In cases of a negative reappointment/tenure/promotion decision, include language that refers to the faculty member’s rights for reconsideration and appeal. See Personnel Rules III, C, 4, f, (1), (i) and other relevant rules.]
[signature of Dept. Chair or department’s designee]___ October xx, 20xx
Chair, Department of Liberal Studies [or designee]
Attachment: Notice of Review
CC: Dr. Nobel Laureate [copy to the faculty member]
08/2016