Skip Navigation and Go To Content

Handbook of Operating Procedures

Six Year Post-Tenure Faculty Review

1.  The dean will ensure that evaluation of tenured faculty will be performed annually with a comprehensive periodic evaluation performed every six years (six year reviews). Tenured faculty members will be evaluated on a six-year cycle determined by the academic year of their award of tenure. The purpose of the six year review is to provide guidance for continuing and meaningful faculty development; to assist faculty to enhance professional skills and goals; to refocus academic and professional efforts, where appropriate; and to assure that faculty members are meeting their responsibilities to the university and the State of Texas.

2. The annual review at six years will be conducted prior to the six year review to allow evaluation and input by the chair//vice chair/division director or equivalent and peers prior to review by the school review committee. The faculty member will be notified at least six months in advance of the intent to perform the six year review.

3. Special circumstances that may alter the six year review timetable include:

  • If the review period coincides with approved leave or a comprehensive review for promotion or appointment to an endowed position, the six year review may be delayed with the approval of the dean for up to one year from the regularly scheduled review date. In no case will review of a tenured faculty member be waived.
  • For tenured faculty who are also academic administrators, the six year review will be held in conjunction with the review of administrators described in HOOP 184 Evaluation of Academic Administrators.

4. The faculty member will submit the last six annual reviews, including teaching evaluations for faculty with teaching assignments, along with a current curriculum vitae and a summary of professional accomplishments. The faculty member is encouraged to submit a summary of professional objectives, a proposed professional development plan and any additional appropriate material.

5. The six year review will be conducted by a school-wide faculty committee. The members of the committee shall include representatives of the school and/or department and will be appointed, on the basis of their objectivity and academic strength, by the dean in consultation with the tenured faculty in the school and/or department and the department chair/vice chair/division director or equivalent.  

6. The review process will take into account the statements of expectations and assignments from offer letters, letters of appointment and annual reviews, and will include review of the faculty member's professional responsibilities in teaching, research, service, patient care and/or administration. The committee must consider factors beyond the individual faculty member’s control that may have impacted performance. Further information may be requested at any step from the faculty member under review. During the review, the faculty member may meet with the review committee, according to the guidelines established by the individual schools. All of the material provided to the committee will be maintained in a confidential manner.

7. The school-wide faculty committee will submit its recommendation on the review outcome in writing to the dean within a specified time, to be determined by the school. The dean will make a final determination on the outcome of the review, communicate such outcome in writing to the faculty member, his or her chair or equivalent, division director/vice chair if appropriate, the Chief Academic Officer (CAO), and take appropriate action as described below.

8. Information obtained in the review will be used to recognize level of performance and determine appropriate action(s). Each faculty member being reviewed shall be placed in one of the following categories in accordance with criteria developed by individual schools or units as provided in HOOP 111 Faculty Review:

a. exceeds expectations;

b. meets expectations;

c. does not meet expectations; or

d. unsatisfactory. 

9. Possible uses of the information contained in the report and appropriate actions based upon the report include the following:

a. The evaluation may be used to determine salary recommendations, nomination for awards, or other forms of performance recognition.

b. For individuals whose performance indicates they would benefit from additional institutional support or a remediation plan, the evaluation shall be used to provide such support or a remediation plan (e.g., teaching effectiveness assistance, counseling, or mentoring in research issues/service expectations). Any remediation plan shall include a timeline for monitoring. Schools and/or departments, in consultation with a peer committee as defined in each school or unit’s procedures, shall monitor individuals receiving such support for evidence of improvement and, if there is insufficient improvement, shall take action under (c) or Section 10, below, if appropriate.

c. Individuals whose performance is unsatisfactory may be subject to further review and/or to appropriate administrative action.

d. If incompetence, neglect of duty, or other good cause is determined to be present, appropriate disciplinary action may be taken under Section 10 below.

10. For tenured faculty members for whom incompetence, neglect of duty, or other good cause is found, review to determine if good cause exists for termination under HOOP 133 Faculty Termination shall be considered. If disciplinary action other that termination is considered appropriate, such faculty members shall have access to procedures that include notice of the specific charges and a hearing prior to the imposition of disciplinary action. Any such hearing shall follow the procedures provided in HOOP 133 Faculty Termination.

11. Appeals by faculty will be conducted in accordance with HOOP 127 Faculty Grievances