Long-Range
Planning
Adopted
09/14/01
Long-Range Planning
Every two
years, the President, with input from the constituent
institutions, shall present to the Board of Governors for
adoption, a long-range plan covering a five-year
period. Such plan shall outline the process for linking
enrollment, academic program, and facilities planning, and
expansion budget and capital improvements requests with the
mission, direction, and programmatic priorities of the
University. It shall also include a process to promote
the continuing progress of the University of North Carolina
in increasing the enrollment and retention of minority
students at all constituent institutions, thereby
diversifying the student bodies of those campuses.
Upon
adoption, the long-range plan shall be forwarded by the
chairman of the Board of Governors to the Governor,
Lieutenant Governor, President Pro Tempore of the Senate,
Speaker of the House of Representatives, and members of the
Advisory Budget Commission. The Senior Vice President
for Academic Affairs shall maintain a copy of each long-range
plan that has been adopted by the Board of Governors.
Adopted
02/01/01
Regulations on Long-Range
Planning, 2002-2007
I.
INTRODUCTION
Long-Range
Planning, 2000-2005 was adopted
by the Board of Governors in January 2000. This plan
updated the 1998-2003 plan that was adopted in January
1998. As we begin the planning process for the next
five years, universities are being asked to develop a plan
that is responsive to changes in higher education, in the
needs and demographics of the State of North Carolina, and in
emerging technologies, scientific and social advancements,
and human and health needs.
The
long-range plan of the University must demonstrate the
integration of budget, facilities, enrollment, and academic
mission. In so doing, campuses must consider the impact
of increased enrollment on their institutions and the
potential of distance education to serve the needs of the
students of North Carolina.
II.
LONG-RANGE
PLANNING, 2002-2007
The next
edition of the long-range plan will cover five years, 2002-03
through 2006-07. The planning process will emphasize
comprehensive planning, the links between enrollment
planning, academic program planning and facilities planning,
expansion budget requests, capital improvement requests, and
the policies adopted by the Board of Governors to guide the
future of UNC. The preparation of the planning document
will be a collaborative process, involving the constituent
institutions, the President and her staff, and the Board of
Governors.
Each
institution, under the direction of the chancellor and with
appropriate consultation with both administrators and
faculty, will submit to the President any proposed revisions
to its current mission statement, organization, academic
program offering, or enrollment plans. The proposed
changes should reflect the institution's long-range or
strategic plan as well as its facilities plans and should be
informed by any special studies undertaken by the Board or
the campus leading up to this process (e.g., MCRs, enrollment
planning, tuition policy, student need-based financial aid,
facilities studies, salary studies, foreign language study,
student and alumni surveys, etc.).
Each
institution must append to its long-range planning submission
a copy of its current long-range/strategic plan.
The
President and her staff will also engage in University-wide
planning as they identify statewide needs and legislative
concerns and review institutional proposals.
A
comprehensive planning document, reflecting the
recommendations of the President, will be prepared by this
office for consideration by the Committee on Educational
Planning, Policies and Programs (CEPPP) of the Board of
Governors. Over a period of several months, the
committee will review these recommendations and discuss
issues of significance in higher education as it considers
revisions of the strategic directions adopted in Long-Range
Planning, 2000-2005. After conducting a workshop to
inform the Board and other interested stakeholders of the
proposed revision, the committee will recommend to the Board
the adoption of Long-Range Planning, 2002-2007. The
President, her staff, and the Board of Governors will
collaborate with the other education sectors through such
vehicles as the Education Cabinet, the Education Commission
(joint meetings of the governing boards of the three public
education sectors), the Transfer Advisory Council, and the
Biotechnology Consortium during the planning
process.
The planning
schedule has been designed to facilitate articulation between
the University's plan for 2002-2007, its ten-year
enrollment plan, its ten-year capital plan, and its expansion
budget request for the 2003-05 biennium.
The
following outline provides guidance for institutional
submissions due May 1, 2001.
A.
Institutional
Mission
Institutional
missions were reviewed during 1990-92 and again in
1993. Some institutions have made minor revisions in
their mission statements in subsequent editions of the
University's long-range plan. Institutions may
submit requests for minor changes in language that will
improve or clarify their mission statements as they appear in
Long-Range Planning, 2000-2005.
Institutional
missions must reflect the reality of the existing programs
and resources and must not be aspirational missions.
During the coming months the Committee on Educational
Planning, Policies and Programs will be reviewing the history
of the use of Carnegie Classifications and, following that
review, institutions may be asked again to review the mission
statements.
NOTE: If
you are submitting a request for changes in the mission
statement, please submit the current statement with the
editing that clearly shows the changes requested.
B.
Response to
2000-2005 Board of Governors' Strategic
Directions
The current
Long-Range Planning, 2000-2005 lists five strategic
directions for the University of North Carolina. In
this section provide a brief summary of the highlights of
your campus's response to each of the strategic
directions. Refer to Chapter IV of the document for the
specifics related to each strategic direction
(northcarolina.edu/aa/planning/reports/longplan/contents.cfm).
1.
Access:
Ensure access to higher education for all qualified citizens
and embrace a vision of lifelong learning.
2.
Intellectual
Capital Formation:
Through excellent graduate, professional, and undergraduate
programs, develop an educated citizenry that will enable
North Carolina to flourish.
3.
K-16
Education:
Continue to propose and support initiatives to serve the
needs of the State's public schools.
4.
Creation
and Transfer of Knowledge:
Expand the frontiers of knowledge through scholarship and
research and stimulate economic development in North Carolina
through basic and applied research, technology transfer, and
public service activities.
5.
Transformation
and Change: Use
the power of information technology and more effective
education, administrative, and business practices to enable
the University to respond to the competitive global
environment of the 21st Century. This is an
opportunity to highlight the campus's response to the
IT strategy approved in 1999.
C.
Academic
Program Development
During this
past year, the academic planning process has been revised to
provide for more timely requests for planning and
implementation. The requirements for academic program
planning for this document ask only that institutions confirm
what has already been submitted and provide institutional
plans for future program development consistent with the new
process and deadlines.
1.
Academic Program Review
In 1995,
1997 and 1999 the Board of Governors conducted a thorough
review of all degree programs to identify those of low
productivity or low priority or those that were
"unnecessarily redundant." Enclosure #1 outlines
that process and requests the campus response.
2.
Requests for Authorization to Discontinue a
Program
Requests to
discontinue degree programs or tracks, whether identified as
a result of the biennial academic program review process or
through other institutional procedures, should include a
schedule for the proposed discontinuations. (Use
Enclosure #2.)
3.
Status
Report on Recently Established Programs
Institutions
with programs authorized by the Board for establishment
during the last four years should provide a status report on
the progress being made in implementing each program.
Enclosure #3 shows the inventory of programs that have been
established at your institution during the last one-two
years or three-four years. Use Form #3A or Form #3B to
report on the status of these programs.
4.
New
Authorization Dates and Reconfirmation of Previous Planning
Authorizations
Institutions
are to report on the status of those proposed new degree
programs for which planning authorization has been granted
under the former process, indicating whether the previous
authorization should be withdrawn or reconfirmed.
Institutions with planning authorization outstanding for
several programs should consider whether some of these
requests should be withdrawn, especially if little progress
in planning has been made and they intend to seek additional
planning authorization under the new process. In
accordance with new program development policies (400.1.1),
planning of baccalaureate, master's, and intermediate
programs must be completed within one year, and planning for
doctoral and first professional programs must be completed
within two years. Enclosure #4 lists for each campus
its current planning inventory and deadlines for submission
of requests to implement the program or to withdraw the
program from consideration. The new schedule is being
applied to all programs authorized previously for
planning.
5.
Planning New
Degree Programs
The new
planning process (400.1.1) asks that institutions inform the
Division of Academic Affairs of the intent to plan new
undergraduate or master's programs. Requests to
plan new doctoral or first professional programs must be
submitted by September 15 of each year. New program
plans should be submitted separately from this
document.
For this
section of the document, provide a brief narrative that
describes the academic planning process and the expectations
for program development directions over the next five
years. Institutions should take this planning
opportunity to describe alternative means of meeting new
program needs, such as on-line programs, year around
programs, or other distance delivery mechanisms.
D.
Enrollment
Goals
The
University has worked with the campuses to develop a ten-year
enrollment plan and enrollment targets. Institutions
should review the current expectations for the campus and,
after consultation with the Office of the President (Judith
Pulley), submit recommended targets for the period
2001-2010. Enclosure #5 includes the most recent fall
headcount projections for this period, as well as
institutional enrollment targets adopted by the Board of
Governors in the enrollment plan for 1998-2008. The
object of this review will be to update this plan for
2001-10, with targets that include both on-campus and
off-campus enrollment goals. Proposed enrollment
targets should be submitted to Dr. Pulley by March 2,
2001.
E.
Reports on
Institutes and Centers
Details on
the reporting process were provided in a separate mailing to
the CAOs and to the center directors during January
2001. As specified in Administrative Memorandum #373,
centers and institutes (hereafter, "centers")
authorized by the Board of Governors must submit reports in
conjunction with the periodic updates of the UNC Long-Range
Plan. Centers will submit status reports directly to
the UNC Division of Academic Affairs on the reporting system
located at the "Status Reporting" hyperlink on
the UNC centers and Institutes website: http://www4.ga.unc.edu/CI
by March 31, 2001, following procedures specified on the WWW
site.
The Chief
Academic Officers or their designees then will have the
opportunity to review and approve the reports from their
respective institutions before they are released for use by
the UNC Office of the President. Centers experiencing
chronic problems in productivity and/or funding should be
carefully evaluated by the institution and requests for
discontinuation can be made as a part of the reporting
process. Responsibility for reports relating to
interinstitutional centers rests with the center director at
the institution serving as the central administrative
unit. For each center approved for planning by the
Board of Governors, the appropriate CAO must provide a brief
statement indicating either: 1) the planning request is
withdrawn, or 2) reconfirmation is requested, with the
estimated date for submission of the request for
authorization to establish.
F.
New Faculty
Positions
As
enrollment increases at UNC institutions, and new faculty
positions are distributed based on these overall enrollment
increases, it will become increasingly important that there
be a match between new positions and areas of growth.
Enclosure #6 indicates the number of new positions awarded to
each institution during the previous biennium.
Institutions must indicate the disposition of these positions
and are invited to present documentation about the overall
enrollment pressures and hiring difficulties in growth
areas.
G.
Institutional
Response to the Minority Presence Plan
Revisions
At the
January 2001 meeting, the Committee on Educational Planning,
Policies, and Programs affirmed the need to update the
Minority Presence Plan with a new set of institutional
activities and responses, and at the February 2001 meeting,
the Board of Governors is expected to approve the plan to
more fully integrate diversity initiatives into all aspects
of institutional planning (Appendix B). In this
section, the institution should provide information about how
it intends to meet the expectations for diversity in response
to the Board of Governors' directive. (Enclosure
#7)
H.
Organization
Charts
Each
institution's organization chart showing its academic
organization, as it appears in Long-Range Plan 2000-2005,is
attached (Enclosure #8). Each institution should note
any organizational changes (as of May 1, 2001) in red ink on
this copy and return the corrected copy with its other
long-range planning submissions. Do not submit a new
chart unless it is accompanied by the current chart showing
the changes in red ink. The Board of Governors must
approve any proposals for major reorganization of the
administrative structure of the institutions (e.g.,
establishment of new colleges or professional
schools).
III.
SCHEDULE
Planning
documents should be submitted to the Office of the President
(Office of the Senior Vice President) by May 1,
2001. Five (5) copies are requested for
review. Insert the abbreviated name of the institution
at the top of each page and use a loose-leaf binder for easy
insertion or removal of pages. Include the current
institutional long-range/strategic plan as Appendix
A.
Discussions
will be held with the chancellors or designated institutional
representatives to clarify proposals or to obtain additional
information.
Following
the review and evaluation of institutional materials, a draft
plan for the University of North Carolina 2002-2007 will be
submitted to the Committee on Educational Planning, Policies,
and Programs of the Board of Governors. The Committee
is scheduled to make its report and recommendations to the
Board of Governors by January 2002. This will enable
the Board to link its long-range plan and strategic
directions to its instructions and priorities for the
expansion budget and capital improvement requests for the
2003-05 biennium.
Calendar for Long-Range Planning Process,
2002-2007
January 23, 2001:
Administrative Council discussion of Long-Range Planning
Process
February 1, 2001: President
Broad sends instructions to institutions for preparations of
proposals for revisions to their respective sections of the
UNC long-range plan (e.g., mission, academic program
development, diversity planning, reports on institutes and
centers, organizational changes). This document is due
May 1, 2001.
May 1,
2001:
Institutional long-range planning submission due.
May
2001:
Preliminary report to CEPPP on successes in achieving
strategies associated with current strategic directions (UNC
Long-Range Planning 200-2005).
June
2001:
Report to CEPPP on demographic, social, economic, and
educational trends that may influence higher education in
North Carolina in future years. Recommendations to
CEPPP on any revisions in current institutional mission
statements or institutional organization.
August
2001:
Cabinet retreat on strategic directions.
August
2001:
Administrative Council retreat on strategic directions.
September 2001: Report to
CEPPP on biennial review of academic degree program
productivity and recommendations regarding program
discontinuations or mergers.
CEPPP retreat on strategic directions.
October
2001:
Recommendations to CEPPP from Office of the President on
revisions to strategic directions.
Report and recommendations to CEPPP on institutes and
centers.
November 2001: Board of
Governors workshop on revisions of UNC long-range plan.
January
2002:
CEPPP and Board of Governors act on Long-Range Planning,
2002-2007.
January
2002:
Long-Range Planning, 2002-2007 submitted to the
Governor and the Legislature.
Adopted 05/08/92
Accountability/Goals and Assessment Measures
The UNC
Fiscal Accountability/Flexibility Act, which was enacted by
the 1991 General Assembly as a part of the appropriations
bill, Chapter 689 of the 1991 Session Laws, authorized the
Board of Governors to designate one or more institutions as
special responsibility constituent institutions. Since
the adoption of this policy, all campuses have been awarded
this designation.
Section
116-30.5 of the Act provides that:
The Board of Governors shall require each special
responsibility constituent institution to include in its
institutional effectiveness plan those assessment measures
that are determined by the Board to be measures that will
assure some standard measure of student learning and
development in general undergraduate education at the special
responsibility constituent institutions. The intent of this
requirement is to measure the impact of G.S. 116-30.1 through
G.S. 116-30.5, establishing and administering special
responsibility constituent institutions, and their
implementation on undergraduate student learning and
development.
The Board of Governors
adopts the attached goals and assessment measures for special
responsibility institutions. Using these measures,
these institutions will focus attention on student
performance during the first two years, track student
progress during the next two to four years, and follow up
every four years with an assessment by baccalaureate
graduates of their educational experience as
undergraduates.
Fiscal Accountability Goals and
Assessment Measures
Goal
1.
To enhance student learning and development.
The
performance of all first-time full-time freshmen will be
reported on the following measures:
1. Percent
completing the first year with a GPA equal to or greater than
2.0.
2. Percent completing
the first year with a GPA equal to or greater than 2.0 and
with 30 or more credit hours or coursework completed.
3. Average grades in
first year courses completed.
4. Percent completing
the second year with a GPA equal to or greater than 2.0.
5. Percent completing
the second year with a GPA equal to or greater than 2.0 and
with 60 or more credit hours of coursework completed.
6. Average grades in
courses completed.
Goal
2. To
improve student persistence and graduation.
The
persistence and graduation rates of all first-time freshmen,
including those student who transferred to another UNC
institution -- with a comparison of those students who
attended full-time in all fall semesters with those who
attended full time in their first-time semester but part-time
in one or more succeeding fall semesters -- will be
reported for the following years:
1. Four-year
persistence and graduation rates.
2. Five-year
persistence and graduation rates.
3. Six-year
persistence and graduation rates.
Goal
3. To
strengthen the undergraduate degree program.
The
self-assessment of spring baccalaureate graduates in the
Class of '92 will be compared to the self-assessment of the
spring graduates in the Class of '88 on the following
measures which evaluate their undergraduate educational
experience:
1. intellectual
growth
2. writing
skills
3. speaking
skills
4. mathematical
skills
5. computing
skills (new measure in 1992)
6. analytical
skills
7. preparation for
graduate and professional studies
8. job
satisfaction reported by fully employed graduates
9. overall
instruction
10. instruction in major
field
The assessment measures
related to Goal 3 will be reported every four years,
following the quadrennial administration of the baccalaureate
graduate survey. All other measures will be reported by
the special responsibility institutions as a part of their
regular institutional assessment reports.
Tenure
and Teaching in
The
University of North Carolina
Adopted 09/10/93
Tenure and Teaching in The University of North
Carolina
September 1993
[This policy has
been published in a separate pamphlet, copies of which are
available through General Administration.]
Adopted
09/28/93
Guidelines on Tenure and
Teaching in The University of North Carolina
I.
Introduction
At the
November 1992 meeting of the Board of Governors, questions
were raised about the procedures and criteria for the
awarding of tenure and about the evaluation, recognition, and
reward of teaching, particularly in tenure decisions.
The chairman of the board referred the questions and concerns
to two standing committees, the Committee on Personnel and
Tenure and the Committee on Educational Planning, Policies,
and Programs. The report entitled Tenure and
Teaching in the University of North Carolina, adopted by
the board on September 10, 1993, distilled what was learned
by the committees and recommended additional steps to
encourage good teaching within the university and to see that
the quality of teaching continues to be a prime consideration
in tenure decisions.
In its
report, the board reaffirmed the concept of tenure. The
central question that led to the review was whether
sufficient consideration is given to the quality of teaching
when tenure decisions are made. The board recognized
that the relative importance given to the three major
functions of teaching, research, and public service varies at
specific institutions depending upon their respective
missions. Nevertheless, the report confirms that, regardless
of classification, "each institution should view teaching as
a core requirement. The board states in its long-range
plan that teaching or instruction is the primary
responsibility of each of the UNC institutions. Thus
while neither teaching nor service nor research is the sole
measure of a faculty member's competence and contribution at
any UNC institution, teaching should be the first
consideration at all of the UNC institutions."
II. Recommendations
This policy
lists the recommendations adopted by the Board of Governors
and provides instructions to be followed by the constituent
institution in complying with them.
1. That
the Board of Governors, through the President of the
University, instruct the Chancellors of each constituent
institution to do the following:
a.
Review institutional mission statements, tenure policies, and
the criteria for making faculty personnel decisions and,
where necessary, to revise them so as to give explicit
recognition to the primary importance of teaching in the
University.
b.
Revise institutional policies and procedures, as necessary,
to require (1) that clear and specific statements of criteria
for evaluation of faculty performance at every level
(institution, college/school, department) are provided in
writing and discussed with each probationary faculty member
before initial employment and at the beginning of the first
term of employment and with each candidate being reviewed for
reappointment or tenure at the beginning of the year in which
the review is scheduled to be made, and (2) that a record of
these discussions be kept in the individual's personnel
file;
c.
Review procedures for the evaluation of faculty performance
to ensure (1) that student evaluations and formal methods of
peer review are included in teaching evaluation procedures,
(2) that student evaluations are conducted at regular
intervals (at least one semester each year) and on an ongoing
basis, (3) that peer review of faculty includes direct
observation of the classroom teaching of new and non-tenured
faculty and of graduate teaching assistants, and (4) that
appropriate and timely feedback from evaluations of
performance is provided to those persons being
reviewed.
Any proposed
revision to institutional mission statements necessitated by
the review referenced in Recommendation 1.a. should be
submitted to the president by January 21, 1994, so that they
can be acted upon prior to adoption of the revised long-range
plan. A full report on actions taken in response to
Recommendation 1 with respect to criteria for faculty
personnel decisions and policies and procedures for
evaluation of faculty teaching performance at both the
undergraduate and graduate levels should be sent to General
Administration by April 4, 1994. Proposed changes to
tenure policies and regulations, which require the approval
of the president and the board, should be separately
identified in the report.
2. That
the President of the University be asked to report on these
reviews to the Board of Governors by July 1, 1994.
3. That
the Board of Governors, through the President of the
University, call upon the chancellors of institutions which
do not now have awards for outstanding teaching to establish
such awards either campus-wide or at the college/school
level.
Institutions
that do not now have awards for outstanding teaching should
submit a report on the actions taken in response to
Recommendation 3 by April 4, 1994.
4. That
the Board of Governors create annual system-wide teaching
awards with monetary stipends which are designated "Board of
Governors' Awards for Excellence in Teaching." (The Chairman
of the Board of Governors should name an ad hoc
committee to work out the details and present recommendations
concerning implementation of this proposal.)
Chairman
Poole has appointed an ad hoc committee to work out
the details to implement the awards. Institutions are invited
to submit recommendations or suggestions by December 1, 1993,
for the consideration of this committee.
5. That
the Board of Governors seek appropriations for each campus in
biennial budget requests to establish or to strengthen
centers and activities designed to encourage and support
teaching excellence and to improve teaching effectiveness
throughout the University.
The report
recognized the special efforts of many institutions to
emphasize professional development activities intended to
have a direct and positive impact on teaching. But it
also acknowledged that greater efforts need to be made in
this regard at a number of campuses, especially those with
limited resources available for such initiatives.
Despite financial strains, it declared that "each institution
should allocate a portion of its budget for faculty
development and target a specific part of that for the
development of teachers and teaching." It is the
board's clear expectation that an institution which does not
have a special center for teaching and learning should plan
to create such a center as soon as possible. The report
also urged institutions to provide tangible incentives and
encouragement for tenured and non-tenured faculty and
graduate teaching assistants to take advantage of these
professional development opportunities. In addition,
Recommendation 5 commits the board to seek appropriations in
biennial budget requests to give greater support to centers
and activities designed to encourage and support teaching
excellence.
6. That
greater efforts be made to develop and strengthen the
teaching skills of graduate students, and that the Board of
Governors ask the President to prepare, in consultation with
the University-wide Graduate Council, a report with specific
guidelines and recommendations for the training,
monitoring, and evaluation of graduate students who teach
courses in UNC institutions.
A committee
from the University-wide Graduate Council is addressing this
recommendation and should report to General Administration by
February 1, 1994. Thereafter, the council's proposals
will be shared with constituent institutions for their
reactions and comments.
[This is a
rewrite of Administrative Memorandum #338.]
Adopted 09/14/01
The
Tenure Regulations of the Constituent
Institutions
The President of the
University shall maintain a compilation, either in printed or
electronic form, of each constituent institution's
tenure regulations adopted in accordance with Section 602
of The
Code of the University of North Carolina. Each campus
shall separately publish its tenure regulations and
distribute them to its faculty.
Adopted 05/16/97
Performance Review of Tenured Faculty
[At its
meeting on May 16, 1997, the Board of Governors adopted the
recommendations in the report of the University of North
Carolina Committee to Study Post-Tenure Review entitled,
"Post-Tenure Review in The University of North
Carolina." These recommendations are contained
herein. The full text of the report is available at UNC
General Administration.]
Recommendations
1. That the system
of post-tenure review in the University of North Carolina
shall incorporate the following principles:
a. The purpose of
the review shall be to support and encourage excellence among
tenured faculty by:
(1) recognizing and
rewarding exemplary faculty performance;
(2) providing for a
clear plan and timetable for improvement of performance of
faculty found deficient, and
(3) for those whose
performance remains deficient, providing for the imposition
of appropriate sanctions which may, in the most serious
cases, include a recommendation for discharge.
b. The system of
review will encompass and acknowledge the importance and
significance of annual performance reviews while providing
for comprehensive, periodic, cumulative review of the
performance of all faculty whose primary professional
responsibilities are teaching, research, and/or service.
c. The review
procedure must provide for the evaluation over an appropriate
period of time of all aspects of professional performance of
faculty relative to the mission of the institution, college,
and program. For each tenured faculty member, a
cumulative review shall take place no less frequently than
every five years. A review undertaken to grant tenure
or to decide on promotion qualifies as such a cumulative
review.
d. There must be
peer involvement in the review.
e. The review
process must include written feedback to the faculty member
being reviewed as well as a mechanism for faculty response to
the evaluation.
f. Institutional
policies for post-tenure review must not abrogate, in any
way, the criteria and procedures for due process and for
discharge or other disciplinary action established in Chapter
VI of The Code of the University.
g. While
constituent institutions may wish to consider individual
development or career plans for all faculty as a part of the
review system, each performance review system must
require such a plan for each faculty member receiving less
than satisfactory ratings in the cumulative review.
These individual development or career plans must include
specific steps designed to lead to improvement, a specified
time line in which improvement is expected to occur, and a
clear statement of consequences should improvement not occur
within the designated time line.
h. In proposing
its policies, each constituent institution must consider the
resources necessary to support and facilitate a meaningful
review system and its outcomes.
2. That within the
broad principles approved in 1. above, each constituent
institution will develop policies and procedures for review
that will reflect the mission of the institution.
Development a system of post-tenure review will require
re-examination of the effectiveness of current faculty
personnel policies as well as planning and program review
policies.
3. That
institutions will have one year following the release of
guidelines by General Administration to develop their
policies and procedures.
4. That the
policies and procedures developed by each constituent
institution will be approved by the Board of Governors and
included in appropriate documents of the constituent
institutions.
*
Note: "Because of the unique character and
mission of the North Carolina School of the Arts, the
requirement that the institution adopt tenure policies will
be satisfied at that institution based on renewable
contracts. . ." (The Code). Therefore, the
recommendations contained herein are not applicable to the
North Carolina School of the Arts.
Adopted 06/24/97
Guidelines on Performance Review of
Tenured Faculty
Background
At its
meeting on May 16, 1997, the Board of Governors adopted the
recommendations in the report of the University of North
Carolina Committee to Study Post-Tenure Review. A copy
of that report is available at General Administration.
Post-tenure review is defined in the report as "a
comprehensive, formal, periodic evaluation of cumulative
faculty performance, the prime purpose of which is to ensure
faculty development and to promote faculty vitality"
(p. 8).
The report
asserts that review of the performance of tenured faculty in
the University shall be "to support and encourage
excellence among tenured faculty by:
1. recognizing and
rewarding exemplary faculty performance,
2. providing for a
clear plan and timetable for improvement of performance of
faculty found deficient, and
3. for those whose
performance remains deficient, providing for the imposition
of appropriate sanctions, which may, in the most serious
cases, include a recommendation for discharge" ( p.
12).
The report
also provides broad principles for carrying out such reviews
but leaves room for each institution to develop the details
of its own process within one year following the release of
guidelines by General Administration. In keeping with
Section 6.02 of The Code, the Board of Trustees of
each constituent institution shall adopt the policies and
regulations governing performance reviews of tenured
faculty. Institutional policies and procedures will
also be approved by the Board of Governors and should be
included in all appropriate documents of the constituent
institutions.
The report
further specifies that "developing a system of
post-tenure review will require reexamination of the
effectiveness of current faculty personnel policies as well
as planning and program review policies" (p. 13).
Initiation of these performance reviews in the University of
North Carolina provides constituent institutions with an
opportunity to create a policy that examines individual
faculty contributions to departmental, school/college, and
university goals as well as to the academic programs in which
faculty teach. Thoughtful attention to the ways in
which post-tenure review can promote faculty vitality across
their careers will assure that such reviews lead to increased
effectiveness within the university.
Guidelines to
assist in formulating institutional policy concerning
performance reviews of tenured faculty are as follows:
Guidelines
The following
guidelines shall be observed in developing institutional
policies and procedures for post-tenure review:
1. Institutions
shall develop policies and procedures for implementing
post-tenure review. Institutions are encouraged to send
a draft of their proposals for initial review by May 1,
1998. Proposals must be submitted no later than July 1,
1998. Implementation of approved policies will begin in
the 1998-99 academic year.
2. Institutional
policy statements shall show the relationship between the
annual performance review of tenured faculty and the
post-tenure review.
3.
Institutional reviews shall provide for the evaluation of all
aspects of the professional performance of faculty whose
primary responsibilities are teaching, and/or research,
and/or service.
4. Institutional
policies shall assure that faculty performance will be
examined relative to the mission of the institution, college,
and program.
5. Institutional
policies shall assure that each tenured faculty member
undergoes a cumulative review no less frequently than every
five years. (Note: a review undertaken to grant tenure
or to decide on promotion qualifies as such a cumulative
review.)
6. Institutional
policies shall explicitly involve peers in the review
process.
7. Institutional
policies shall assure that there is written feedback to the
faculty member being reviewed as well as a mechanism for
faculty response to the evaluation.
8. Institutional
policies shall be in compliance with the criteria and
procedures for due process and for discharge or other
disciplinary action established in Chapter VI of The
Code of the University.
9. Institutional
policies shall require individual development or career plans
for all faculty receiving less than satisfactory ratings in
the cumulative review. These plans must include
specific steps designed to lead to improvement, a specified
time line in which improvement is expected to occur, and a
clear statement of consequences should improvement not occur
within the designated time line.
10. As policies are developed,
institutions shall consider resource implications of a
meaningful performance review system, identifying in advance
the sources of support for the process and its outcomes.
[This is a rewrite of Administrative
Memorandum #371.]
Adopted 04/12/96
Amended 03/07/01
</
