Post-Tenure Reviews

Background on Post-Tenure Review

Effective June 12, 2025, the Indiana University Board of Trustees established policy BOT-24: Post-Tenure Faculty Productivity and Annual Review in compliance with Indiana Code (IC) 21-39.5-2-2 and IC 21-38-3.5. 

The policy creates a post-tenure review on a five-year cycle. Each tenured faculty member will complete a post-tenure review five years after their effective tenure date and every five years thereafter. The focus of the post-tenure review is the five-year period, which the faculty member may discuss within the context of their entire academic career.

In Spring 2026, the first year following the effective date of IC 21-38-3.5, 20% of tenured faculty members with the most longevity as tenured faculty will be evaluated, in addition to faculty members who have had tenure in effect for the five prior years. In each of the second, third, fourth, and fifth years following the effective date of IC 21-38-3.5, 20% of tenured faculty, annually, who have the most longevity as a tenured faculty member and who have not received a post-tenure productivity review will be evaluated in addition to faculty who have had tenure in effect for the five prior years. Faculty timelines for post-tenure review are managed by the Provost's Office and distributed to academic units.

Tenured faculty members holding administrative roles (chairs, directors or higher with faculty supervisory role or 0.5 or greater administrative full-time equivalent, FTE) shall be reviewed annually by their supervisors. These tenured faculty members shall undergo post-tenure review in the fifth year after their administrative appointment drops below 0.5 FTE. 

Resources for Post-Tenure Reviews

• Frequently Asked Questions
• Step-by-Step Elements User Guide for Faculty
• One-Page Summary Guidance for Faculty
  • Teaching
  • Research
  • Service
• Evaluation Letter Template for Chairs and Deans
  • Chair to Faculty Member Notification Email Template (2026)
  • Dean to Faculty Member Notification Email Template (2026)
• Post-Tenure Review Workshop Recording (January 2026)

Routing Procedures

1. (Due February 16, 2026) A faculty member under review, submits through the Post-Tenure Review exercise in Elements:
   1. Curriculum Vitae (CV)
   2. Up to one-page per productivity area (teaching/library services, scholarship, and service) describing their accomplishments and summarizing productivity over the previous five years.
   3. Estimates on the following items during the 5-year review period:
      1. Average Teaching/Library Services effort allocation 
      2. Total number of undergraduate students taught 
      3. Total number of graduate students taught
      4. Average hours per week spent on instructional assignments
      5. Average hours per week spent overseeing graduate students
2. (Due March 6, 2026) The faculty member's department chair/unit head review the materials submitted by the faculty member, along with the last five years of annual report letters. The department chair/unit head will provide a written assessment of the overall productivity of the faculty member using a template provided by the Academic Leadership Council (ALC) and the University Faculty Council (UFC).
3. (Optional) The School Dean may choose to convene a post-tenure review committee to assist in the assessment of the Post-Tenure Productivity Review Packets. This committee will serve in an advisory capacity to the dean. 
4. (Due March 20, 2026) The dean will review the materials and assess the faculty member’s disciplinary record in their personnel file. The dean will add a brief letter that assesses and recommends the faculty member’s productivity rating for the five-year period under review using a template provided by the Academic Leadership Council and the University Faculty Council.
5. (Optional and due by April 3, 2026) The faculty member will have ten (10) business days from receipt of the dean’s letter to submit an optional response that can be added to the packet before the Dean forwards the packet to the Provost and Chief Academic Officer for review. 
6. (Due April 17, 2026) The Provost shall review the Post-Tenure Productivity Review Packet and assess the faculty member’s productivity, professional conduct, academic responsibilities, and performance during the review period. The Provost will provide each faculty member reviewed a final performance rating before forwarding the packet to the Chancellor.
7. (Due April 30, 2026) The Chancellor will review the dossier and accept, reject, or modify the Provost’s recommended rating. The Chancellor will send their recommendation to the President.

Performance Ratings

1. Exceeds productivity expectations: Record of productivity and performance for this faculty member clearly and substantially exceeds expectations.
2. Meets productivity expectations: Record of productivity and performance for this faculty member demonstrates a sustained record of performance. Annual reports for this faculty member provide evidence of an overall sustained meet expectations or higher rating during the last 5 years in the areas of productivity.
3. Does not meet productivity expectations: Performance falls below the productivity expectations outlined for the faculty member. A faculty member who receives an overall unsatisfactory rating for their annual report during one of the previous 5 years and/or has demonstrated a pattern of failing to perform duties assigned by Indiana University, and/or has sustained violations of applicable state and federal law and/or Indiana University policies and procedures, all noted in the annual reports, are evidence of does not meet productivity expectations.
4. Unsatisfactory productivity: Faculty member has failed to meet the expectations for productivity and performance. The faculty member has received an overall unsatisfactory annual report rating for two or more of the previous 5 years, and/or has demonstrated a pattern of failing to perform duties assigned by Indiana University, and/or has sustained violations of applicable state and federal law and Indiana University policies and procedures, all noted in the annual reports, are evidence of unsatisfactory productivity.