Tenure Biblio Kratz, A.R. (2005).

Tenure Biblio

Kratz, A.R. (2005). The effectiveness of post-tenure review practices in Texas graduate institutions as perceived by academic deans (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi, TX.

This study identifies the main motivation and impetus behind post-tenure reviews as the maintenance of standards of quality in teaching positions, as is evidenced by a general consensus of professors and administrators at the several institutions discussed. External pressures regarding continued accountability are also cited as a primary reason such practices are undertaken. Different formats and delivery schedules of post-tenure reviews are reviewed for efficacy, and such reviews generally have very mixed results. The assertion that effective post-tenure review is enormously time consuming and expensive is commonly made.

Jaschik, S. (2009). Defeating post-tenure review. Retrieved November 6, 2009, from Inside Higher Ed. Web site: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/03/25/Maryland

The rejection of a post-tenure review process at the University of Maryland was met with dismay by students, who formed the loudest public voice in the matter. These students felt that post-tenure professors were less accessible and less present in their teaching than those who had yet to achieve tenure. Professors rejected the proposal, claiming that it placed the burden of the review on the professors, and thus undermined tenure, in addition to having a negative impact on teaching by demanding more of the professor's time be devoted to proving to a committee that they were effective in their positions.

McNeil, D. (1997, May 7). San Jose State University s97-5: Policy recommendation post-tenure review. Retrieved November 6, 2009, from San Jose State University. Website: http://www.sjsu.edu/senate/S97-5.pdf

This document outlines a proposed plan for post-tenure review at San Jose State University in California. The review process as outlined is formative in nature, with input being drawn from a variety of sources including standard student opinion surveys distributed in each class, other signed documentation from students and colleagues, and a formal review with a committee consisting of the department chair and at least two other professors of higher rank than that being reviewed (except in the case of full professors). Review efficacy is not within the scope of this document, nor does it comment on general principles or motivations for post-tenure review.

Post-Tenure Review: An AAUP Response. (2006, October 26). Retrieved November 6, 2009, from American Association of University Professors Website: http://www.aaup.org/NR/rdonlyers/BBF5E3D5-5A39-4265-B1B9-FD59FE4AC7OC/O/PostTenureReviewAnAAUPResponse.pdf

Explicitly reaffirming and expanding upon the organization's stance against post-tenure reviews, especially when used as disciplinary tools, this document of the AAUP also identifies certain ways in which review processes themselves can and ought to be reviewed when implemented. Specifically, the Association warns against limits and dangers to academic freedom that could result from post-tenure reviews, and essentially suggests a bevy of alternative options for imposing sanctions and other disciplinary actions rather than resorting to post-tenure review, and that a proper review process can be identified by its lack of intrusion into areas best covered by other processes contractual agreements. It is not surprising that they conclude post-tenure reviews are ineffective when they have removed any effectiveness form their definition of a proper review.

Resolution no. 3/17/96 on post-tenure review: Adoption of Fresno model as baseline. (1996, March 17). CSSA board of directors. Retrieved November 6, 2009, from California State University Website: http://www.csustudents.org/plenary/resolutiondocuments/96-3-17_Post_Tenure.pdf

In this incredibly succinct and straightforward resolution, the California State Student Association lays out their reason for wanting to implement a system-wide post-tenure review process (namely the unmitigated existence of individual unnamed professors who were deemed to be ineffective in the classroom). Their reasoning also includes the stated rules governing professor's performance in relation to academic freedom, and cites the fact that the students' tuition pays the salaries of the professors. The system wide implementations of the proposed post-tenure review process is essential to ensure the same quality of instruction at all CSU campuses, the students maintain. Costs associated with this implementation are not addressed.