Model for Implementation of Streamlined
Promotion & Tenure/Continuing Status Review Process

After two years of research and discussion, the University of Arizona plans to implement a change in the probationary review schedule for promotion and tenure/continuing status (P&T/CS) in the fall 2003. A 3/6 year review cycle will replace the 2/4/6 year review schedule as described below. In addition, for probationary faculty only, the annual review will contain a component addressing progress toward P&T/CS.

Old Model

• P&T/CS reviews occur at second, fourth and sixth (mandatory) years.
• Second- and fourth-year reviews are local, go no further than department (or college) unless there is a negative finding. In a negative finding, the file proceeds to the Provost’s Office through the normal P&T/CS channels as described in UHAP 3.12.07 and 4.11.02.
• Annual performance reviews are inconsistent in how they address candidates' progress toward P&T/CS. In general the annual performance reviews tend to focus on more short-term, departmental performance, and the ratings in the annual performance reviews may not necessarily reflect progress toward successful P&T/CS status.

• P&T/CS reviews occur during the third and sixth (mandatory) years. In the first year of implementation, faculty who are already hired shall follow these paths:
• Faculty who have already undergone the second-year review shall stay on the 2/4/6 year cycle;
• Faculty who would be due for the second-year review may choose either cycle.
• The third-year review goes through normal department level process, and is reviewed by the college P&T committee, or its equivalent. The dossier must include all the elements of the sixth-year review, except for the outside letters. The third-year review becomes, in effect, a dress rehearsal for the sixth year review. It is now the only probationary review opportunity to terminate a candidate prior to the sixth year review (although a person could be terminated at any time for cause).
• Annual performance reviews of all probationary faculty will include a component discussing the candidate's progress toward P&T/CS. This component will include peer review and must be communicated in writing to the candidate by the department head (it may also be discussed in meetings with the head and committee). Colleges and departments will decide what supporting materials need to be included with the annual review in order to evaluate progress toward P&T/CS. Each year, departments will submit the P&T/CS section of annual reviews of any probationary faculty whose progress toward P&T/CS is not satisfactory to the dean and to the college P&T/CS committee, or its equivalent.
• For candidates whose progress in any area is not satisfactory, a written plan must be developed by the candidate in consultation with the department head, with guidelines for improvement and for integration into subsequent annual reviews until the plan is completed. This plan must be submitted with the results of the progress toward P&T/CS.
• If the results of the third-year review warrant the need for an interim review prior to the mandatory year, the department or dean or college P&T/CS committee, or its equivalent, may request an additional fourth- or fifth-year review.
• If the results of the third-year or any subsequent probationary review are negative, the file must proceed through the regular P&T/CS process to the Provost’s Office as described in UHAP 3.12.07 and UHAP 4.11.02.

Prior to Implementation

Prior to implementation, each college will develop a college common elements plan describing how departmental annual reviews will address the formal assessment on progress toward P&T/CS for probationary faculty. Common elements in all plans must include:

• A clear description of the differentiation of roles of the departmental annual performance review and the subsection on P&T/CS. [Note: UHAP 3.10.02 says, "Annual performance reviews shall be taken into account as part of the promotion and tenure process, but such evaluations are not determinative on promotion and tenure issues. Satisfactory ratings in the annual performance reviews do not necessarily indicate successful progress toward promotion and tenure."]
• A statement describing which members of the faculty will participate in the review of the P&T/CS component of the annual review. Although the annual P&T/CS assessments are not the same as the sixth-year mandatory reviews, colleges should limit participation in the P&T/CS components to only those faculty holding rank superior to the rank of the candidate.
• A description of the process for discussion of teaching, research/scholarship, service with the candidate, as measured against the departmental and college written criteria for P&T/CS;
• A description of the process for the overall assessment of progress toward P&T/CS, as measured against the written criteria;
• In the case of unsatisfactory progress in any area, a description of the process for developing a written plan for improvement and guidelines for integration into the subsequent annual reviews until the plan is completed.

Prior to implementation of the 3/6 year review model, deans will review, approve, and forward the final college common elements plans to the Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs for approval. Deans will require each department to provide a written plan describing the format and process for including such assessment of progress toward P&T/CS in the annual review, in compliance with the college common elements plan.

Already completed

• Introduction of issue in Program for Academic Leadership - Spring 2001
• Debate of pros and cons of changing schedule in HeadsUp, using live discussion and electronic brainstorming - Spring 2001
• Analysis of electronic results - Summer 2001
• Research into practices at other institutions - Fall 2001
• Survey of all faculty - Fall 2001
• Analysis of results - Spring 2002
• Discussion of survey results and issue at annual Heads Retreat - Fall 2002
• Vetting of proposed plan with department heads, through HeadsUp - November 2002
• Vetting of the proposed plan with Provost's Management Group, Academic Council, all department heads through deans - November/December 2002
• Presentation of final proposal to HeadsUp and deans - January 2003

• Presentation to Faculty Senate - March/April 2003
• Approval process for departmental annual review revisions - Spring/Summer 2003
• Implementation of new review schedule - Fall 2003

This site is maintained by Office of the Provost, The University of Arizona Administration Buildling 512, PO Box 210066 Tucson, Arizona 85721-0066 phone: (520) 621-1856   fax: (520) 621-9118 email