Traveling Along the Tenure Track:
The Final Leg — The Tenure and Promotion Review

Liana Valente

While preparing for this final article I realized that the most useful information I could offer to readers would be a broad range of opinions and experiences. I, therefore, created a web-based survey focusing on the tenure and promotion process from two perspectives - educators who either already hold or are currently pursuing tenure, and educators who have served on a tenure and promotion committee. Educators from all disciplines were invited to complete the survey administered by the Omega Tower Design Partners. While many of the results mirrored my own experiences, many comments made about the process were unexpected and revealing, raising a number of provocative questions. Again I would like to thank all of the educators who took the survey for their participation and their candor. (The results of the survey can be found here.)


Survey Results

The previous two articles described techniques and strategies for successfully completing the first few years at a new institution and were written assuming a standard time frame of six to seven years for earning tenure at a four-year institution. However, the survey showed that the time frame for awarding tenure varies greatly from one institution to another. Of those respondents who had already earned tenure, only 27% reported that the process lasted six years. Eighteen percent of respondents reported a process of only three years, 18% reported a process lasting seven or more years, and 9% percent reported that they completed the tenure process in five years. It should be noted that questions on the survey did not distinguish between educators who had accrued tenured-years and those who had not. The demographic statistics gathered seemed to indicate that respondents from both groups were represented in the participant pool.

Also of interest was the finding that many colleges and universities are either abandoning or are considering modifications to the traditional practice of awarding tenure. Those colleges considering modifications to the tenure process are experimenting with different time limits so that educators would be reevaluated either every year or every two or three years. The situation for part-time faculty at many schools and at community colleges is more unpredictable – adjunct professors, regardless of level of education, are typically offered contracts on a semester to semester basis with no expectation of renewal. Many community colleges offer only one-year contacts to full-time professors who then participate in yearly evaluations. One participant of the survey described his/her retention process in this way;

We have a Continuing Contract.  We are given an Annual Contract where we are monitored, mentored, advised, and evaluated for three years.  If we please the college/department head, we are renewed for another year.  After the third year we should be offered the Continuing Contract, again if we please the college/department head.  Even if we receive the CC, this is not the security blanket of University tenure.  We may be released from our contract and not renewed, without recourse, if the college feels it appropriate.

Regardless of the time frame, respondents described mid-process reviews (either annual evaluations or third-year reviews) with varying degrees of approval.  Ninety-five percent of survey respondents participated in annual or third-year reviews and 83% found them to be helpful in identifying their strengths and weaknesses. However, half of the respondents described aspects of the review that either needed to be improved or modified. Concerns mentioned by participants included the following:

• The administration must follow the stated time table for evaluating the educator and his/her submitted materials.
• Precise guidelines for evaluating educators in diverse disciplines need to be created. As one respondent stated, “it is difficult to weigh the merits of various elements in a faculty member’s activities and responsibilities. How can one fairly and precisely compare the outcomes of public performance as opposed to service to faculty governance units or academic advancement?”
• Reviews should be based clearly upon the specific job responsibilities, not on generic requirements that one participates in: “research, service, teaching and ethical behavior.”
• Reviews should “serve as a method of communication about future improvements and opportunities rather than [be] a clerical exercise.”

Since the first two articles of this series stressed the importance of taking advantage of information found in a faculty handbook, having regularly scheduled meetings with one’s department head, and seeking advice from a mentor, I was surprised to learn that these basic tools were not made available to many faculty members. Fully half of the respondents who participated in annual reviews did not receive a faculty handbook, and only 19% were assigned a mentor. Numbers were slightly better for those participating in mid-process reviews; 62% had access to their faculty handbook, but only 15% were assigned a mentor.

The actual evaluation process typically included a portfolio review, but rarely included an interview with the committee. Fewer than half of those who participated in annual reviews were observed in the classroom while only 38% or mid-process review participants were observed. In addition, fewer than half of respondents had preparatory meetings with their department head or dean. From the results of the survey it is clear that the most important aspect of the annual and mid-process review is classroom observation.

Half of the survey participants had already earned tenure, they were asked to rate their satisfaction with the review process; a majority stated that they were moderately to highly satisfied. Many mentioned that the mid-process reviews were helpful as they prepared for the tenure review, while some questioned whether the review process was focused enough on career development.


Advice from Tenure Committee Members

Colleagues who had served on tenure and promotion committees were asked to offer advice for those pursuing tenure. Here are some of their comments;

• Make sure that your responsibilities and requirements in progressing towards tenure are clearly defined in writing and strictly following the formal process
• Take advantage of every opportunity to learn about the process.
• From the beginning get advice about what is important at your institution.
• Find a full professor who is where you want to be and use that person as a mentor.
• The year you go up for tenure be sure to apply to other jobs – don’t close any door. This is not a negative statement; it is one of self preservation.

 

Conclusions

A number of conclusions can be drawn from the results of this survey. First, one must realize that earning tenure is a long-term process with specific goals that must be met to achieve the final result. Second, it is prudent to arm yourself with the materials that will allow you to successfully complete the process (faculty handbook, letter of appointment, guidelines written by the department, etc.). Third, commit to preparing for each step. Finally, gain familiarity with the goals and missions of the institution; this is crucial as you decide how you can best support and advance those goals. However, if your philosophical and pedagogical goals do not match those of the institution, or if you are unhappy with your situation, consider taking a position at another institution.

The earning of tenure allows the educator a certain level of job security, but this security must be tempered with the understanding that our purpose is to serve the students’ educational needs and to advance the field in which we teach. By committing to this ideal and by fulfilling your obligations to the institution and yourselves, your years of teaching can be exciting and rewarding. I wish all of you success as you continue to travel down the tenure track.

 

Dr. Liana Valente is a professional musician and music educator currently teaching in central Florida and performing throughout the Southeastern United States. She has held teaching positions at Knoxville College (TN), Wesleyan College (GA), and at a number of public and private high schools and community colleges in Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida. She has recently accepted an administrative position with the Lakeland Opera Theater and will be featured Artist-In-Residence during the inaugural season, singing roles in Amahl and the Night Visitors, La Boheme, and Suor Angelica. She is a life member of Phi Kappa Phi.