FSD 25-07 Resolution on Process and Procedures for Performance Review of Tenured Faculty

January 6, 2026

1 December 2025

PURDUE UNIVERSITY NORTHWEST FACULTY SENATE

Resolution to establish a process for Post-Tenure Review

Committee: Faculty Affairs

For Discussion: December 12

Whereas: We are compelled to adopt a policy on Post-Tenure Review.

Be it resolved: we shall adopt the policy as presented here, beginning on the next page.

Committee Members voting for this resolution

Rob Hallock

Shontrai Irving

Masoud Fathizadeh

Patti Ludwig-Beymer

Gokarna Aryal

Committee Members voting against for this resolution

None.

Process and Procedures for Performance Review of Tenured Faculty

Effective Date: XX, 2025

Introduction

This Purdue University Northwest Academic Affairs Memorandum on the process and procedures for the performance review of tenured faculty resulted from recent changes in state legislation, including Senate Enrolled Act (SEA) 202 (effective July 1, 2024); House Enrolled Act (HEA) 1001-2025 Section 267, Chapter 3.5 (effective July 1, 2025); and recent statutory changes to Purdue University Standard S-4 (Performance Reviews for Tenured, Tenure-Track, Clinical/Professional and Research Faculty, Interim).

Standard S-4, which has been in place since 2017, has the stated objectives to:

Identify individual strengths, weaknesses and opportunities in the mission areas of discovery, learning and engagement and to facilitate communication between academic heads and faculty.
Provide the opportunity for faculty to update heads on activities and goals and for heads to discuss larger unit needs with faculty.
Identify rising leaders and potential barriers to success and to provide mentoring opportunities.

Purdue Standard S-4 and HEA 1001-2025 further indicate that the post-tenure review (PTR) process will take into account the staffing needs of the institution and will measure the faculty member’s productivity. Purdue Standard S-4 stipulates that these post-tenure reviews must encompass a broad range of activities, may include annual or multi-year goals, and that activities may be weighted in keeping with the role and responsibilities of individual faculty members. HEA 1001-2025 Section 267, Chapter 3.5, Sec. 4.(a)(2)(B)(i)-(iv) explicitly specifies that the PTR process must, at a minimum, include:

The faculty member’s teaching workload;
The total number of students the faculty member teaches at the undergraduate level and, if applicable, graduate level;
Time spent on instructional assignments;
If applicable, time spent on overseeing graduate students; and
The research and creative scholarship productivity of the faculty member.

In the case of PNW, measures of all three areas of tenured faculty responsibilities (learning, discovery, and engagement) will be included in the post-tenure reviews.

The reviews of such activities must also address all provisions of review required by Indiana law and Standard S-4, including consideration of the following questions:

Has the individual exposed students to scholarly works from a variety of political or ideological frameworks that may be within and applicable to the given academic discipline?
Has the individual refrained from subjecting students to views and opinions concerning matters not related to the discipline or assigned course of instruction?

Standard S-4 requires each department/school to develop a performance review process for all faculty (tenured/tenure-track, clinical/professional, and research) in their respective unit that includes:

Annual written feedback for Assistant and Associate Professors
Written feedback for full Professors at least once every three years.

Establishing the process for the regular, systematic, review of faculty after tenure is the purpose of this Academic Affairs memorandum. This is an administrative process approved by the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs (VCAA) for compliance with state law and Purdue University policy. The criteria established by academic departments/schools and colleges that define levels of performance deemed excellent, strong, and satisfactory in the three areas of faculty responsibilities (learning, discovery, and engagement) in faculty evaluation for tenure and promotion remain in place. The process and procedures for the post-tenure review of tenured library faculty will be forthcoming in a future version of this document.

This process is also aligned with PNW’s values – Respect, Innovation, Student-Centric, and Excellence (RISE) – as well as with its Academic Tenure and Promotion Policies and Procedures document, which recognizes that faculty contributions to learning, discovery, and engagement are essential to the mission and establishes the foundation for implementing campus-specific processes and procedures.

Process for the Performance Review of Tenured Associate Professors

Review Process and Required Materials

As per Standard S-4, Deans must collaborate with Department Chairs/School Directors to design processes and procedures for review within the faculty ranks of their units; these are subject to the approval of the Provost/VCAA by the end of the Fall 2025 semester.

Following the FAR schedule determined by the Provost/VCAA (typically with a deadline to submit materials in the early part of the Spring semester), tenured Associate Professors will submit through the electronic workflow system:

The current FAR materials pertaining to accomplishments during the past year and goals for the coming year, as well as information required by Indiana law (including SEA 202 and HEA 1001-2025) and Standard S-4;
An abbreviated version of their current curriculum vita that focuses on a minimum of the last three years;
A brief PTR narrative in alignment with the structure of the college’s FAR activities report that includes accomplishments for each of the three areas (learning, discovery, and engagement) of faculty responsibilities (maximum of two (2) pages per area); and
If applicable, responses to any concerns previously raised in the annual PTR process and/or progress made under a performance improvement plan.

To minimize the time spent collecting PTR materials, on behalf of tenured Associate Professors, the Office of the Provost/VCAA will upload the information required by HEA 1001-2025 in the electronic workflow system on their teaching schedules and total numbers of students taught at the undergraduate and graduate levels. When available, the office will also upload the two previous PTR reports.

Because PTR is not an option, faculty members who do not submit the required PTR materials by the established deadline will automatically be placed on probation with a performance improvement plan unless extreme circumstances preventing the submission are documented and approved by the Provost/VCAA.

Process for the Performance Review of Professors

Review Process and Required Materials

Purdue Standard S-4 calls for the review of tenured Professors on a three-year cycle. The triennial PTR of Professors will evaluate the degree to which they continue to meet or exceed expectations for learning, discovery, and engagement as established by their departmental/school or college. These initial PTR criteria must be approved by the Dean and Provost/VCAA by the end of the Fall 2025 semester.

To fulfill the requirements of Standard S4, the PTR of Professors will be incorporated into the existing FAR process. For the years in which PTR is not required, the annual review of tenured Professors will follow the typical FAR process that includes information required by Indiana law and Standard S-4. The triennial cycle commences the academic year when a faculty member is appointed to the rank of Professor. Faculty who were promoted to the rank of Professor in Fall 2022 or earlier will undergo their initial PTR according to the staggered schedule established by the Provost/VCAA.

Following the FAR schedule determined by the Provost/VCAA (usually with a deadline to submit materials in the early Spring semester), every third year, tenured Professors shall prepare and submit through the electronic workflow system:

The current FAR materials pertaining to accomplishments during the past year and goals for the coming year, as well as information required by Indiana law (including SEA 202 and HEA 1001-2025) and Standard S-4;
An abbreviated copy of their current curriculum vita that focuses on a minimum of the last three years;
A brief PTR narrative in alignment with the structure of the college’s FAR Activities report that includes accomplishments for each of the three areas (learning, discovery, and engagement) of faculty responsibilities (maximum of two (2) pages per area) during the past three years; and
If applicable, responses to any concerns previously raised in the PTR process and/or progress made under a performance improvement plan.

To minimize the time spent collecting PTR materials, on behalf of tenured Professors, the Office of the Provost/VCAA will upload their previous two years of FAR materials as well as the information required by HEA 1001-2025 in the electronic workflow system on their teaching schedules and total numbers of students taught at the undergraduate and graduate levels. When available, the office will also upload the previous PTR report.

Procedures for the Performance Review of Tenured Faculty

Tenured faculty members are independently reviewed by the Department Chair, Dean, and Provost/VCAA, with the Provost/VCAA being the final level of review. These reviews are based on the department/school or college PTR criteria for each of the three primary areas of tenured faculty responsibilities (learning, discovery, and engagement), using the following categories and corresponding scores:

Outstanding – score of 5.0 (maximum value)
Excellent – score greater than or equal to 4.0 and less than 5.0
Meets expectations – score greater than or equal to 3.0 and less than 4.0
Needs improvement – score greater than or equal to 2.0 and less than 3.0
Unacceptable – score greater than or equal to 1.0 and less than 2.0.

Since faculty responsibilities vary greatly, a weighted average of the score for each of the three areas (learning, discovery, and engagement) based on the faculty member’s approved workload provides an overall measure of performance:

Exceeds expectations – weighted average score of 4.0 and above
Meets expectations – weighted average score greater than or equal to 3.0 and less than 4.0
Unsatisfactory – weighted average score below 3.0.

PTR Faculty Review Process

In PTR cases where the Department Chair/Director and/or Dean evaluate a faculty member to be below satisfactory on their Post Tenure Review, the case will be referred to a PTR Faculty Committee.

Each year, a PTR faculty panel will be established, consisting of one tenured faculty member at or above the rank of the reviewed faculty, elected from each college, with an odd number of members. The members shall elect a chair. No member may not review their own case. If needed, a substitute from that college shall be appointed.
The process for a PTR Faculty Review will include:
The PTR Faculty Review Panel will convene in person or virtually as permitted by the Provost as per the Tenure Review Policy to discuss each case. The discussion will focus on the PTR materials submitted.
Following each discussion, the committee will make a review recommendation, indicating either that the PTR evidence suggests satisfactory work or unsatisfactory work over the indicated time frame. This will be determined by the majority anonymous vote of the committee.
The vote count and review recommendation will be recorded on a form signed by the members of the PTR Faculty Committee. This form will be submitted to the Provost alongside the recommendations from the Department Chair/Director and Dean. The form will also be submitted to the faculty member under review.

_____________________________________

PTR Faculty Review Form

Candidate:

Recommendation:

Candidate’s performance is satisfactory over the review period.
Candidate’s performance is unsatisfactory over the review period.

Brief Commentary (optional, include only if there is disagreement in the recommendation.)

Committee Signatures:

As per Standard S-4 and corresponding to HEA 1001-2025, an overall unsatisfactory performance at the conclusion of the PTR will result in the faculty member being placed on probation with a performance improvement plan (PIP), and may lead to other disciplinary action.[1] In such cases, the PTR report will identify institutional resources to enhance their performance in the given area(s), which must be addressed in their goals for the next PTR cycle. The performance of the faculty member as statutorily required by Indiana Law and Standard S-4 must also be addressed, including responses to the two aforementioned questions.

For faculty on a PIP, future reviews will attend closely to their progress on the PIP, the lack of subsequent performance on which may lead to other appropriate disciplinary action as described in the following section. Tenured faculty with the rank of Professor on a PIP will undergo annual PTRs instead of triennial PTRs to ensure suitable progress is being made and that adequate institutional resources are made available to enable faculty to successfully complete the plan. To ensure faculty have a reasonable amount of time to successfully complete a PIP, the PIPs will cover a three-year period. However, faculty who successfully complete the plan in less than three years will be removed from the PIP and probation, if applicable, and resume the regular PTR process starting with the next PTR cycle. Faculty making little to no progress on achieving the annual benchmarks during the first or second year of a PIP may receive additional sanctions before the PIP concludes.

Review Procedures

The performance of tenured faculty will first be assessed by the Department Chair or School Director (henceforth, considered as a Department Chair for the purpose of this document) who will provide a written performance evaluation based on department/school or college PTR criteria. As part of the review, the Department Chair will certify the performance of the faculty member as statutorily required by Indiana Law and Standard S-4. For tenured faculty on a PIP, the evaluation must also address their progress in meeting the expected benchmarks to successfully complete the plan. In cases where the Department Chair has a lower rank than faculty undergoing PTR, the department-level PTR will be conducted by the Dean’s designee who will hold equal or higher rank.

Should the faculty member undergoing PTR disagree with the Department Chair’s review, the faculty member has the right to submit a rebuttal to the college Dean within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of the review.

The Department Chair’s evaluation, PTR report, and faculty rebuttal, if applicable, will then be forwarded to the college Dean through the electronic workflow system for evaluation. If the Dean agrees with the Department Chair’s review, the Dean will indicate as such by providing comments or uploading a written evaluation letter, as appropriate. If the Dean disagrees with the Department Chair’s review, the Dean will provide a written evaluation to the faculty member based on department/school or college PTR criteria. For tenured faculty on a PIP, the evaluation must also address their progress in meeting the expected benchmarks to successfully complete the plan.

Should the faculty member disagree with the Dean’s review, the faculty member has the right to submit a rebuttal to the Provost/VCAA within seven (7) calendar days of receiving the Dean’s review.

The PTR report, along with these reviews and faculty rebuttal(s), if applicable, will then be sent to the Provost/VCAA for the final level of review. In the case of discrepancies between the Department Chair’s and Dean’s assessments, or in the case where the Provost/VCAA disagrees with the Dean’s and Department Chair’s review, the Provost/VCAA will provide a written evaluation to the faculty member based on department/school or college PTR criteria. For tenured faculty on a PIP, the evaluation must also address their progress in meeting the benchmarks to successfully complete the plan.

At the Provost/VCAA’s level of review, if the faculty member’s overall performance (based on the weighted average of the scores in the three areas) is deemed unsatisfactory for the first time, the faculty member will be placed on probation and the Department Chair and Dean (in consultation with the Provost/VCAA) will prepare a three-year PIP that includes annual progress benchmarks and identifies institutional resources to help support the progress.[2]

For faculty already working under a PIP, at the Provost/VCAA’s level of review, if the faculty member is deemed to be making unsatisfactory progress on achieving the PIP benchmarks, additional sanctions may be imposed, including those listed in the following section. As noted, faculty who successfully complete the plan ahead of schedule will be removed from the PIP and probation, if applicable, and resume the regular PTR process starting with the next PTR cycle.

Upon completion of the PTR, all reviews and the PIP, if applicable, will be provided to the faculty member and the Department Chair to inform goals for the next three years and closely evaluate actions undertaken to address any area(s) of concern. Such actions will be taken into consideration in the subsequent PTR. In cases that involve a new PIP, the Department Chair will also meet with the faculty to develop a three-year timeline and strategies to achieve the PIP progress benchmarks, as well as identify campus resources to support the faculty member’s improvement.

Outcomes from Progress on Performance Improvement Plans

The purpose of the PIP is to provide faculty with the opportunity, adequate institutional resources, and measurable benchmarks to be successful in the profession. To ensure faculty have clear expectations and enough time to successfully complete a PIP, each PIP will be designed for three years and include short-term yearly goals that build toward long-term goals.

Faculty working under a PIP are expected to demonstrate progress in meeting the short-term goals during the annual PTRs. Upon successfully achieving the long-term goals in the three-year PIP, the PIP will be considered complete (even if three years have not transpired), and the normal PTR cycle will resume. At that time, if applicable, the faculty member will be removed from probation and become eligible for merit salary increases and other privileges that may have been removed during the PIP.

For faculty who achieve most but not all the benchmarks at the end of the three-year PIP, the PIP will be extended for one additional year to provide additional time for the faculty member to address the unmet goals; if applicable, probation may be removed and merit eligibility may be restored during the extension, depending on the faculty member’s other professional achievements.

If little or no progress is made during the first year of a three-year PIP, intermediate sanctions may be applied, including being placed on probation (if they were not previously on probation), the ineligibility for salary merit increases (if they had been eligible), the removal of special privileges (such as reassigned time, access to summer teaching, etc.), and the loss of discretionary allocations, such as certain professional development opportunities. However, if the PIP requires activities that need specific discretionary support, then targeted discretionary funds may still be provided to support the faculty member to successfully achieve those benchmarks. If little or no progress on the annual benchmarks is made by the second year of a three-year PIP, additional intermediate sanctions may be applied, including a salary reduction or demotion.

Faculty who made little to no progress in successfully achieving the long-term goals at the end of the three-year PIP will be subject to the sanctions specified by SEA 202, Chapter 2 (Tenure, Promotion, Employment, Complaints, and Disciplinary Actions), Sec. 2(d):

Termination (also referenced in HEA 1001-2025),
Demotion,
Salary reduction,
Other disciplinary actions as determined by the institution,

Any combination of 1 through 4.

The specific sanction(s) and corresponding timelines will be determined by the Provost/VCAA at the conclusion of the PTR process.

Provisions for the Review of Tenured Faculty with Administrative Appointments

Purdue Standard S-4 states that the review of “activities may be weighted in keeping with the role and responsibilities of individual faculty members.” As such, members of the faculty who have been assigned administrative appointments that disqualify them as members of the voting faculty, as defined by the Bylaws of the Purdue University Northwest Faculty Senate, are not subject to PTR under this policy. However, such faculty members may voluntarily participate in the PTR process appropriate for their rank. Regardless if they participate in PTR, all tenured faculty with instructional responsibilities remain subject to the Department Chair’s review and certification of their performance as statutorily required by Indiana law included in Standard S-4.

Faculty who transition from administrative roles back to voting faculty status become subject to the PTR under the policy. During the first year of transitioning to voting faculty status, the former administrator will work with the Department Chair on developing a three-year plan that includes achieving professional milestones and the proposed metrics/benchmarks upon which progress should be evaluated. In the first PTR after returning to the faculty, the Department Chair as well as Dean (in consultation with the Provost/VCAA) will provide feedback and suggestions for institutional support to achieve the plan. During the first year of PTR, they are subject to the Department Chair’s review and certification of their performance as statutorily required by Indiana law included in Standard S-4.

During the second year after transitioning to voting faculty status, the former administrator will be given an opportunity to revise and refine their plan based on the feedback provided during the first PTR. The Department Chair and Dean (in consultation with the Provost/VCAA) will again provide feedback and suggestions for institutional support to achieve the revised plan. During the second year of PTR, they are again subject to the Department Chair’s review and certification of their performance as statutorily required by Indiana law as defined by Standard S-4.

Upon completion of the second year after transitioning to voting faculty status, the former administrator is subject to all the conditions for PTR outlined in this process document as appropriate for their rank. Likewise, during all subsequent PTRs, they are subject to the Department Chair’s review and certification of their performance as statutorily required by Indiana law listed in Standard S-4.

Provisions for the Review of Tenured Department Chairs

Department Chairs who hold status as voting faculty, defined by the Bylaws of the Purdue University Northwest Faculty Senate, are subject to PTR under this policy appropriate for their rank. The review process for Chairs is identical to that for other faculty with the modification that the review begins with the college Dean. The actions stemming from the results of the PTR are identical to those outlined above with the addition that the Dean may recommend to the Provost/VCAA and Chancellor that a change in departmental leadership be implemented. In accordance with the provisions of Standard S-4, activities in the three domains of faculty work may be weighted according to the administrative role and responsibilities of the Department Chair.

Tenured Faculty on Leave

Tenured faculty who take significant amounts of institutionally-approved paid or unpaid leave from their faculty responsibilities in any given year may submit a request to extend the PTR period by one (1) year through the Dean to the Provost/VCAA up to two (2) days before the PTR/FAR materials are due. Such requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Communication

The information in this memorandum will be disseminated annually to all faculty by the Provost/VCAA through email that announces the corresponding deadlines for faculty annual review and PTR. In addition, the information will be accessible through the Provost/VCAA’s website, which will also be included in offer letters to tenured and tenure-track faculty.

Proviso for the Spring 2026 Transition to Post-Tenure Review

Recognizing that HEA 1001-2025 was passed on April 25, 2025, and became effective July 1, 2025 – after faculty had already established with their Department Chairs their performance goals and workload for the 2025-26 academic year – tenured faculty undergoing PTR in Spring 2026 will primarily be assessed based on the FAR criteria, workload, and progress made toward the goals established for 2025-26. However, the Spring 2026 PTR will follow the review procedures discussed earlier in this document, including with the review levels being the Department Chair, Dean, and Provost/VCAA. It will also consider the responses to the two aforementioned questions.

In addition, in all but the most egregious cases of overall unsatisfactory performance for the goals established for 2025-26, probation will be waived, although the faculty member may still be subject to a PIP. The extent to which the case is egregious enough to warrant probation and/or a PIP in the Spring 2026 FAR/PTR cycle will be assessed in the Department Chair’s and Dean’s reviews, with the final determination made by the Provost/VCAA. In cases where a PIP is warranted without probation in Spring 2026, lack of progress in achieving the annual PIP benchmarks by the Spring 2027 FAR/PTR cycle will follow the procedures described earlier in this document.

[1] See the Proviso at the end of this document concerning the PTR procedures for Spring 2026.

[2] See the Proviso at the end of this document concerning the PTR procedures for Spring 2026.