Rank, Tenure & Promotion

Five-Year Review

The Tenure Policy Statement of Pepperdine University (see Appendix A, Section VI.D states:

"All faculty with tenure will be subject to a thorough review of performance every five years by the tenure committees of the schools. This review will serve to identify areas of strengths and weaknesses of faculty performance and to identify means to improve that performance."

In accordance with this requirement, the following will serve as guidelines for the five-year review of tenured faculty members at GSEP.

Eligibility

All faculty members who hold tenure, have received the rank of full professor within GSEP, and are assigned to teaching will undergo a five-year review. However, in order to avoid duplication of review processes, tenured faculty members who have not yet reached the rank of full professor are not subject to a five-year review if they apply for promotion within the normal years of movement from one rank to the next. Faculty members who choose to remain at a rank for longer than five years when this length of time is not required, according to the Eligibility for Advancement and Promotion Table, will also be subject to a review at the end of five years. Tenured faculty members eligible for a five-year review will be notified by the Dean in the Spring of the year prior to review. Five-year reviews for faculty members who are full-time administrators, i.e., Associate Deans and Dean, are suspended until they are reassigned to full-time teaching. During one's tenure as a full-time administrator, the review process for Associate Dean is overseen by the Dean, and the review process for the Dean is overseen by the Provost.

Portfolio Materials

Faculty members under review will demonstrate how they have maintained acceptable performance since their last review. They will do so by creating a portfolio reflecting their performance or growth and development in the critical areas of teaching, scholarly activity, and service. They will also describe their continued support of Christina values and the mission of the University.

Portfolio is broadly defined to include any related materials. Its purpose is to provide the vehicle for faculty to illustrate their accomplishments in an individualized fashion. One set of review materials is required. The portfolio should include the version of the Faculty Data Form labeled "Five-Year Evaluation of Tenured Faculty" (see Appendix D-2, page 66). All faculty are also required to address how they prepare students for working with diverse populations in the community. Furthermore, the candidate must also address how he or she assesses student learning. In other words, how does the faculty member attempt to ascertain if the course objectives are being met for each of his/her student? The Associate Dean of the division with which the faculty member is affiliated will be requested to submit a summary of the candidate's teaching evaluations.

Although faculty should demonstrate performance or growth and development in the three areas of teaching, scholarly activity, and service, and describe continued support for Christian values, they may wish to focus, in large part, on one area. For example, they may choose to illustrate creative work in technology or a facet of clinical work. A faculty member may also elect to write a more broadly defined personal reflections paper in which he or she contemplates his or her career achievements and future aspirations. They should keep in mind, of course, that since Pepperdine is principally a teaching institution, the areas of teaching and scholarly activity are of primary importance in demonstrating performance or growth and development.

The portfolio may be as simple as a binder containing relevant materials or embody a more elaborate design as long as it contains materials that fall within the critical areas used to evaluate faculty performance.

Faculty who are submitting five-year review materials will be excused from the annual administrative review conducted by the Associate Deans. Peer reviews are not required; they are optional.

Evaluation Process

The process will be an in-house faculty review; that is, faculty will conduct the review through their elected RTP Committee. The RTP Committee will review the materials submitted and determine whether or not they demonstrate acceptable performance or growth and development on the part of the faculty member. The Committee Chairperson will write a letter that summarizes the outcome of the Committee's review. The letter will be approved by the other Committee members prior to forwarding it to the faculty member and the Dean, before the end of the academic year.