Post-tenure review: a study of policies and practices at colleges and universities in the United States

The evaluation of faculty performance has been a part of the teaching profession in the United States, and elsewhere, for as long as higher education has existed. It was not until the 1970s, however, when projections about a slowdown in student enrollment prompted a few institutions, concerned about future finances and the number of tenured faculty, to begin what is known today as a system of post-tenure review. The last few years have seen a dramatic increase in the number of public institutions adopting post-tenure review policies.

The purpose of this study was to discover the degree to which the post-tenure review policies and practices at accredited four-year public and private institutions in the United States conformed with the American Association of University Professors’ proposed "Guidelines for Considering the Establishment of a System for the Periodic Evaluation of Tenured Faculty" and the Standards for Good Practice in Post-Tenure Review."

Using a self-designed survey instrument that incorporated and adapted the AAUP's guidelines and standards, the chief academic officers and a faculty representative at 372 institutions in 47 states, selected in a random stratified sample, were asked to respond to questions about the policies and practices at their institutionsThe overall findings revealed that prior to an institution's adoption of a policy: (a) Faculty members were given the primary responsibility for the design of post-tenure review policies in terms of setting the criteria for evaluation. (b) Discussions took into account evaluative procedures and elicited convincing data on what the existing procedures failed to address. (c) An analysis of the costs and benefits was not usually conducted. (d) Post-tenure review was not usually set up on a trial basis to be periodically evaluated with respect to its effectiveness.

The findings also revealed that institutions are generally in conformity with the AAUP's "Standards of Good Practice," except for the provision of financial resources to support post-tenure review's faculty development aspect, which in the survey was presented as "new" financial resources. When asked if new financial resources had been designated to fund faculty development, all seven stratified groups studied–chief academic officers, faculty representatives, public institutions, private institutions, research institutions, doctoral institutions, and master's institutions--reported that new funds had not been designated. Of all the groups studied, the only ones showing a significant difference regarding questions about standards were the responses received from chief academic officers compared to faculty representatives.

This study reveals the perceptions of chief academic officers and faculty representatives regarding post-tenure review. Knowing these perceptions can be useful to both groups when formulating or modifying policies and practices at public and private higher education institutions.