Post-Tenure Faculty Review and Renewal II: Reporting Results & Shaping Policy, Christine M. Licata, and Betsy E. Brown, editors, Anker Publishing, 2004
Reviewed by Donna C. Bird, Center for Teaching, University of Southern Maine

Yesterday afternoon, I had a conversation in the check-out line at the local natural foods supermarket with an undergraduate student at my institution for whom I have considerable respect.  I told her that I would be spending time in the next week reviewing faculty promotion and tenure applications.  She made a face, admitting that she disapproves of the practice of tenuring because she has had too many tenured professors who show limited motivation to do a good job in the classroom.  And that, at least in part, is what post-tenure faculty review is about.

The present volume is the second in a series on the subject of post-tenure faculty review to grow out of the American Association for Higher Education New Pathways Project.  The first volume, Post-Tenure Faculty Review and Renewal:  Experienced Voices (Licata and Morreale, 2002, also published for the AAHE by Anker), was intended to disseminate knowledge about the post-tenure review process from the nine campuses that participated in the AAHE project.  A third volume, Post-Tenure Faculty Review and Renewal III: Outcomes & Impact, is forthcoming.

Most commentators place post-tenure faculty review within the broader accountability movement that has swept through American institutions of higher learning in the past few decades.   At least two state university systems, in Oregon and California, established post-tenure faculty review as early as the 1970s; most others have started the process more recently.  This series is clearly designed as reference and guide for those institutions that are still in the relatively early implementation phase.

It's easy to think of post-tenure faculty review as part of the same movement as peer review of teaching, another area in which the AAHE has provided valuable leadership and support.  Both practices enjoy a decidedly mixed reputation among the faculty for whom they are intended.  Like any other professionals, most university faculty have a strong, indeed a passionate, preference for self-governance and autonomy.  From a faculty perspective, that is what academic freedom is all about.  So faculty in public postsecondary institutions that have had either post-tenure faculty review or peer review of teaching imposed on them by outside entities like state legislatures or boards of trustees are likely to be less than receptive to the program.

On the other hand, some of the more recent adopters of the post-tenure faculty review process have attempted to enhance its appeal by tying successful review outcomes to inducements such as salary increments.  Post-tenure review initially appeared in the 2003-2005 Agreement between the University of Maine System and the Associated Faculties of the University of Maine System.  The references are contained in a section about salaries.  The contract states that UMS member campuses will conduct post-tenure reviews on a 4-year cycle and adds that any faculty member receiving a peer committee evaluation of satisfactory or higher may receive a salary increment of up to 3.5 percent.  This increment is in addition to any cost-of-living pay increases negotiated by the bargaining unit and represents the only avenue open for faculty members to receive such a pay increase apart from promotion from associate to full professor.  While I won't say that all of our faculty or staff have embraced this policy with wholehearted enthusiasm (it creates quite a bit of extra work for everyone involved), I have heard expressions of grudging appreciation from those who got even part of that increment---and have talked to quite a few who use the post-tenure review as a trial outing toward a planned application for promotion to full professor.

Post-Tenure Faculty Review and Renewal II is organized into two major sections.  The first 85 pages feature eight relatively brief essays that describe different issues likely to be of concern to university administrators and faculty as they attempt to address the challenge of reporting results from a post-tenure faculty review process to different constituent groups.  The remaining 120 pages comprise three appendices that provide sample data collection forms, comprehensive reports, and implementation studies from several major public higher education institutions or systems.

Post-Tenure Faculty Review and Renewal II would be a useful addition to the reference library of any university administrator with responsibilities for post-tenure faculty review.