Policy

Post-Tenure Review Policy (FAC 6.3)

University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh
Policy # 1.7

 

PURPOSE

This policy sets forth the ways in which UW-Oshkosh complies with the Universities of Wisconsin’s requirements for post-tenure review (Regent Policy Document 20-9).

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs

SCOPE

This policy applies to all ranked faculty with tenure at UW-Oshkosh.

BACKGROUND

In 2016, the Universities of Wisconsin required all campuses to put a post-tenure review process in place to ensure tenured faculty continued to perform on all dimensions of the faculty job. The overriding purpose of the periodic, post-tenure review is tenured faculty development, and that such review shall not infringe on existing faculty rights and protections, including those of academic freedom. The UW-Oshkosh Faculty Senate established this policy in response and delegated specific implementation to the academic units.

DEFINITIONS

  • Post-Tenure Review (PTR): The performance evaluation process performed every five years to assess the performance of tenured faculty.
  • Performance Improvement Plan: The steps necessary to return a tenured faculty to “meets expectation” status in the event that a PTR leads to an evaluation of “does not meet expectations” on one or more dimensions of teaching, scholarly activity, and research.

POLICY STATEMENT

The post-tenure review period begins in the academic year following the granting of tenure and shall occur every five years for all faculty who have not been promoted in the past five years.  Pursuant to Universities of Wisconsin Policy, the outcome of the PTR process is not subject to grievance. The review may be deferred, only with the approval of the provost, for unusual circumstances such as when it may coincide with an approved leave, promotion review, or other appointment.

Schools shall adopt PTR policies that include:

  1. General guidelines for the collection and assessment of evidence of quality teaching, professional and scholarly growth, and service. These guidelines must be consistent with the collection and assessment of such evidence in the merit process and in the promotion process.
  2. Provision for notice of the intent to review at least three months before the review is conducted.
  3. Delineation of the roles and responsibilities of those who will conduct or contribute to the review, including the dean, the provost, or the chancellor, or a designee.
  4. A process and timeline for providing written feedback to faculty members being evaluated and for face-to-face feedback with the unit head and/or personnel committee representative. At each level of review, faculty may submit a written response to the feedback.
  5. A process for identifying those faculty whose performance meets expectations and those who do not meet professional expectations in the area of teaching, professional and scholarly growth, and/or For faculty who are not meeting expectations, a performance improvement development plan (PIP) should be developed based on the identification and documentation of specific deficiencies. The PIP should outline major goals to be attained in order to eliminate the deficiencies and should be written in consultation with the dean. The focus of the PIP should be developmental and faculty should be afforded support in fulfilling the requirements set forth in the PIP.
  6. A process and timeline, not to exceed three semesters, for determining how and when the faculty member will have satisfied the expectations of the PIP. This process must include a review by the college dean, the provost, and the chancellor, or designee.
  7. Provision for the actions to be taken when the faculty member fails to meet expectations set forth in the PIP.
  8. Provision for using the results of the post-tenure review in determining merit pay adjustments without conducting a separate merit review.
  9. Provision that school directors be required to report annually to the dean and chancellor (or designee) that all periodic, post-tenure reviews for tenured faculty in that annual cycle have been completed.
  10. Provision for filing summaries of evaluations with the Provost and Vice Chancellor’s Office.

The Faculty Senate shall approve all School-level PTR policies.

OVERSIGHT, ROLES, AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The Faculty Senate is responsible for the content and revision of this policy, consistent with Article II of the Faculty Constitution.

The Personnel Policies Committee of the Faculty Senate shall conduct a review of this policy at least once every five years. It may do so more frequently if governing policies change, at the request of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, or at the request of 25% of sitting Senators. If the Personnel Policies Committee deems any changes to be necessary, it shall recommend those changes to the Faculty Senate, or it shall advise the Faculty Senate that it does not recommend changes based on the requested or scheduled review.

The Faculty Senate approves recommended changes (or acknowledges the recommendation for no changes) to this policy by majority vote. Following any Faculty Senate vote that ratifies revisions, any changes to this policy are finalized upon approval by the Chancellor and the Universities of Wisconsin Board of Regents. The five-year review clock resets upon the Faculty Senate’s action.

RELATED DOCUMENTS

  1. Regent Policy Document 20-9, Periodic Post-Tenure Review in Support of Tenured Faculty Development
  2. UWS 6.02 Grievances

POLICY HISTORY

  • March 18, 2025: Original approval by Faculty Senate
  • May 5, 2025: Last Revision Date
  • July 10, 2025: Approval by Board of Regents
  • January 16, 2026: Technical revisions to align with WCAG 2.1 AA digital accessibility standards

SCHEDULED REVIEW

January 1, 2030