Appendix W: Post-Tenure Review (PTR) for Tenured Faculty

(FSM 2/11/14. Revisions 3/10/26, 5/12/26)

Policy Title	Post-Tenure Review (PTR) for Tenured Faculty
Policy Number	University Handbook – Appendix W
Effective Date	May 12, 2026
Responsible Office	Office of the Provost with Faculty Senate
Applies To	All active, full-time faculty with tenure
Policy Supremacy	This policy supersedes any and all previous academic policies, guidelines, procedures, or practices that are inconsistent with its provisions. In the event of a conflict between this policy and any earlier policy or unit level guidance, the provisions of this policy shall govern. Units may not adopt or enforce policies or practices that contradict this policy unless explicitly authorized in writing by the Provost.
Policy Type	This appendix is classified as an Academic Policy. This policy falls under the purview of shared academic governance. The following requirements apply to all future amendments: Faculty Senate Review Required: Any amendment, revision, or deletion of this appendix must be reviewed through the Faculty Senate governance structure. Compliance Review Required: All proposed changes must undergo review by the Office of Provost and Office of General Counsel to ensure alignment with KBOR policy, federal/state law, accreditation requirements, and university policy development protocols. Provost Approval Required: Final approval authority for publication or revision of this appendix rests with the Provost. No revisions to this appendix may be made without Faculty Senate review, compliance verification, and Provost approval.
Review Cycle	This policy shall remain in effect until amended or rescinded through the standard policy approval process. The policy shall undergo review at least every two (2) years from its effective date. Renewal of the review requires: Review and endorsement by the Faculty Senate, and Review and approval by the provost. Failure to complete the required review by the two-year interval shall not invalidate the policy; however, the policy shall be flagged for priority review until such time as the required endorsements are completed.
Last Review	May 12, 2026
Accreditation & Regulatory Compliance Note This policy has been developed to satisfy requirements of the Kansas Board of Regents (KBOR) Policy Manual Section II.C.8 (Evaluation of Faculty and Post-Tenure Review). All personnel responsible for administering faculty evaluations are expected to be familiar with this policy and its underlying regulatory basis.

Table of Contents

• .010 Purpose and Scope
• .020 Definitions
• .030 Applicability
• .040 Criteria for Post-Tenure Review (PTR)
• .045 Adjustments to PTR Timing for Approved Leave
• .050 PTR Committee Formation and Membership
• .060 Review of Required Materials and Submission Procedures
• .070 Review Procedures and Assignment of Performance Ratings
• .080 Tenured Professional Development Plan (T‑PDP)
• .085 Modifications to an Active T‑PDP
• .086 Review of a Completed T‑PDP
• .089 Disposition and Outcomes
• .100 Discontinuation of PTR
• .110 Dispute Resolution
• .120 Confidentiality and Records
• .130 Roles and Responsibilities
• .140 Timeline (Two submission periods)
• .160 Questions

.010 Purpose and Scope

This appendix establishes Kansas State University’s framework for Post‑Tenure Review (PTR) to ensure that tenured faculty continue to meet performance and productivity expectations. The main goal of this process is to help faculty identify opportunities that will allow them to reach their full potential for contributing to the university. PTRs aim to provide a long-term perspective compared to the annual review. The process is designed to be formative and collaborative, grounded in peer review, academic freedom, and due process, and to provide specific guidance and assistance to help faculty return to expected performance levels as needed. Peer review ensures that evaluations reflect shared disciplinary standards and collective professional judgment, strengthening both the fairness and credibility of the process. It is intended to encourage intellectual vitality and professional proficiency for all members of the faculty throughout their careers, so they may effectively fulfill the mission of the university. It is also designed to enhance public trust in the University by ensuring that the faculty community undertakes regular and rigorous efforts to hold all of its members accountable for high professional standards.

.020 Definitions

Academic Supervisor – The faculty member’s department head/chair, school director, dean, or designee as applicable.

Domain of assigned workload – An area of professional responsibility (e.g., teaching, research, service/engagement, extension) formally assigned to a faculty member pursuant to the approved faculty workload policy and documented in annual workload agreements and Faculty Annual Performance Reviews. Expectations and performance evaluations within each domain are determined relative to the faculty member’s assigned workload and approved departmental criteria.

F‑APR – Faculty Annual Performance Review.

PTR – Post‑Tenure Review.

T‑PDP – Tenured Professional Development Plan developed to remediate identified performance deficits within a defined timeframe.

Satisfactory post-tenure review evaluation – The Faculty member receives “meets expectations” for the post-tenure review evaluation as a final determination.

Tenure‑Home Department – The academic department, school, or comparable unit in which a faculty member’s tenure resides, as formally recorded in the faculty member’s appointment letter and university personnel records. The tenure‑home department retains primary authority for post‑tenure review, including evaluation criteria, committee composition determinations, and administrative oversight. Faculty members with joint, secondary, fractional, courtesy, or cross‑college appointments remain anchored to a single tenure‑home department and college for purposes of PTR, regardless of the distribution of assigned workload across units. When questions arise regarding a faculty member’s tenure‑home department, the designation on file with the Office of the Provost shall be controlling.

Unsatisfactory post-tenure review evaluation – The faculty member receives “does not meet expectations” for the post-tenure review evaluation as a final determination.

.030 Applicability

This policy applies to all full-time and full-time equivalent faculty members who have been awarded tenure at Kansas State University. Colleges and departments shall align local practices with this appendix. Where unit bylaws specify additional requirements consistent with University policy, those shall also apply.

The Professorial Performance Award (PPA) is a separate meritorious recognition and review process and does not constitute a Post-tenure Review (PTR); faculty should pursue the PPA independently when eligible.

.040 Criteria for Post‑Tenure Review (PTR)

All full-time and full-time equivalent tenured faculty members, unless they are in a position that is required to undergo a five-year administrative review, shall undergo a post-tenure review five years after receiving tenure. Post-tenure reviews will continue at five-year intervals unless a review for promotion is warranted. The promotion review, whether successful or not successful, shall reset the post-tenure review clock; post-tenure reviews will continue at five-year intervals thereafter. The five-year PTR interval shall be further defined to mean that PTR will be conducted for all tenured faculty either every five years, or in the fifth academic year following promotion. A tenured faculty member who previously served in an administrative position requiring a five-year administrative review shall have their post-tenure review clock reset upon returning to a faculty position (i.e., they will undergo PTR in the fifth year following returning to faculty).

A mandatory PTR may also be initiated based on outcomes of the standard Faculty Annual Performance Review (F‑APR).

Trigger: A tenured faculty member who receives an evaluation of “Not Meeting Expectations” in any domain of assigned workload for two successive evaluations during annual review period shall be subject to PTR. The “not meeting expectations” can be in any domain of assigned workload; they do not have to be in the same area. Units using numeric ratings must map those ratings to the category “Not Meeting Expectations.”

Notification: When criteria are met, the Academic Supervisor shall notify the faculty member in writing no later than 10 days after the faculty member receives a final copy of their faculty annual performance review, with copies to the dean and the Provost (or designee).

.045 Adjustments to PTR Timing for Approved Leave

If a tenured faculty member is scheduled to undergo PTR during a period in which they are on approved leave (e.g., Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave, approved unpaid leave, sabbatical leave, assignment leave such as federal agency) the timing of the PTR may be adjusted in accordance with the provisions below.

1. Yearlong Sabbatical Leave - A faculty member on a full year sabbatical may defer their scheduled PTR to the following academic year.
2. One semester‑ sabbatical Leave - When a sabbatical covers only part of the academic year, the faculty member shall undergo PTR during the non-sabbatical semester within the originally scheduled review year
3. FMLA or Approved Unpaid Leave - If a faculty member is on FMLA leave or an approved unpaid leave during the scheduled PTR year, the PTR period shall be suspended until the faculty member returns to active status. The PTR timeline will automatically shift forward by one year unless a different timeline is approved by the Provost (or designee).

The schedule for PTR could also be delayed for up to one year to accommodate a major health issue or another compelling reason, provided that the faculty member, academic supervisor, and Provost (or designee) approve of the delay.

Impact on PTR Cycle: Approved leave-based deferrals postpone the conduct of a scheduled PTR but do not, by default, alter the underlying five-year review cycle because they are two different approval processes. The original PTR due year remains the reference point for determining subsequent PTRs unless the provost (or designee) explicitly approves a cycle reset in writing.

If a cycle reset is approved, the next PTR will occur in the fifth year following completion of the deferred review. If no reset is approved, the next PTR will occur according to the original five-year schedule, even if the deferred PTR was completed at a later date.

.050 PTR Committee Formation and Membership

A PTR review committee shall conduct the review. The PTR review committee must consist of at least five individuals, no more than half of whom can be from the home department of the faculty member under review.

Rather than forming a new committee from scratch for each individual case, colleges shall maintain a standing pool of eligible tenured faculty from which review committees are drawn. This pooled approach reduces the administrative burden of repeated committee formation, ensures a dependable reviewer base during high-volume review cycles, and reflects PTR as a shared faculty responsibility rather than a task borne by a small number of individuals.

Joint Appointments

For purposes of PTR committee pool participation and committee composition, a faculty member’s tenure‑home department and college shall govern all determinations. Faculty with joint, courtesy, or fractional appointments remain eligible for inclusion in the PTR reviewer pool of their tenure‑home college.

When serving on PTR committees, a reviewer with a joint appointment shall be considered “home department” only with respect to faculty whose tenure‑home department is the same as their own. In all other cases, the reviewer shall be considered external to the department for purposes of meeting committee composition requirements.

In PTRs involving faculty with joint appointments, the review shall be anchored in the tenure‑home department and college, with due consideration given to assigned workload and expectations across all appointment units. Committee composition should reflect relevant disciplinary expertise from across appointment units when feasible, while remaining compliant with policy requirements.

Pool Establishment

Each college shall establish and maintain a standing PTR reviewer pool. A college-level pool is the default. With provost (or designee) approval, a university-wide pool may be established or supplemented to serve colleges or departments that cannot otherwise meet composition requirements from within their own college. The Dean of the Unit, in coordination with the Academic Supervisor, shall be responsible for populating and maintaining the pool on an annual basis.

Pool membership shall be for a term of one academic year, renewable annually. Faculty do not carry over automatically from one year’s pool to the next; the Dean shall confirm or update the pool membership each year as part of the annual submission process.

Colleges shall communicate to faculty that pool membership is part of the shared governance and professional service obligations of a tenured appointment. The Dean shall maintain a record of current pool members and shall make this list available to the provost (or designee) upon request.

Composition

A PTR review committee formed from the pool for an individual case must satisfy the following requirements, consistent with KBOR policy:

1. The committee must consist of at least five tenured faculty members at or above the rank of the faculty member under review.
2. No more than half of the committee members may be from the home department of the faculty member under review.
3. If the faculty member undergoing PTR holds the rank of associate professor with tenure, at least two committee members must also hold the rank of associate professor with tenure.

Pool Eligibility

To be eligible for the pool, a faculty member must:

1. hold tenure;
2. not hold an administrative role that supervises or have input into faculty annual performance reviews of faculty; and
3. not be subject to an active Tenured Professional Development Plan (T-PDP), have received an unsatisfactory post-tenure review finding within the prior review cycle, or have received an unsatisfactory review finding within the prior faculty annual performance review.

Eligibility is re-verified at each annual renewal. Eligibility for the pool does not automatically obligate a faculty member to serve on every committee drawn from the pool; eligibility is distinct from assignment, which is governed by the Committee Selection and Service Limits provisions below.

PTR Review Candidates as Pool Members

All tenured faculty who are themselves scheduled for post-tenure review in a given cycle are presumed eligible for inclusion in the college PTR reviewer pool and are expected to participate in pool service during that cycle, unless excluded under one or more of the following conditions:

1. The faculty member is on an approved leave of absence during the review period;
2. The faculty member is subject to an active T-PDP or received an unsatisfactory PTR finding within the prior review cycle; or
3. The Dean determines that another clearly defined circumstance warrants exclusion.

A faculty member serving in the pool may not serve on their own PTR review committee. In general, pool members who are themselves under review should be assigned to cases outside their home department unless no other eligible reviewer, including from the university pool, is available and the Dean approves an exception in writing.

Service Limits

To ensure equitable distribution of review service and to make pool participation predictable and reasonable, the following default limits apply per review cycle:

1. No pool member shall be assigned to serve on more than two (2) PTR review committees per review cycle (i.e., fall, spring) without their consent (e.g., no more than four per academic year).
2. The Dean shall make reasonable efforts to distribute committee assignments broadly across all available pool members before requesting that any individual take on an additional assignment beyond the default cap.
3. Exceptions to the service cap may be approved by the Dean when necessary, due to rank requirements, disciplinary fit, conflict-of-interest recusals, or a limited number of eligible reviewers. Any such exception shall be documented.

A pool member whose term expires while actively serving on a committee shall complete their service on that committee, after which their pool membership concludes unless renewed.

Committee Selection

For each individual PTR case, the Academic Supervisor shall identify and recommend committee members drawn from the established pool, consistent with the composition requirements above. When making selections, the Academic Supervisor may consider the disciplinary background and adjacent expertise of pool members relative to the faculty member under review. If a university-wide pool is in use, the Academic Supervisor may use a matching matrix or equivalent tool provided by the Office of the Provost’s to guide disciplinarily appropriate selections in a consistent and documentable manner.

In order to ensure appropriate expertise is equitably available for all faculty undergoing PTR, especially persons engaged in cross-college, interdisciplinary work, department heads, with approval from their deans, may appoint a member to a PTR committee that is not in the college pool provided that all requirements for the PTR committee are met as described above.

The Dean of the Unit shall formally appoint the committee and shall communicate its composition to the provost (or designee) and to the faculty member under review prior to the commencement of the review by the date specified in the yearly PTR calendar.

Composition Input

The tenured faculty member undergoing PTR may submit to the Academic Supervisor the names of up to two individuals from the eligible pool for consideration for inclusion on their review committee. The Academic Supervisor shall give good-faith consideration to the submitted names and shall select at least one individual from the submitted list, provided the individual is a member of the established pool and no university policy or conflict-of-interest standard precludes their appointment. If neither suggested individual is eligible or available, the Academic Supervisor shall notify the faculty member in writing and may request two additional names.

The faculty member under review may also submit the names of individuals they believe have a conflict of interest and should be excluded from their review committee. The Dean shall evaluate such requests in accordance with the conflict-of-interest standards set forth below.

Chair

The Dean of the Unit, upon recommendation of the Academic Supervisor, shall appoint the committee chair from among the appointed committee members prior to the commencement of the review.

Augmentation

If the established pool does not contain a sufficient number of eligible members to constitute a compliant committee for a specific PTR case (e.g., because of rank requirements, conflict-of-interest recusals, or a small department) the Dean, with provost (or designee) approval, may augment the committee with eligible tenured faculty from related disciplines who are not current members of the pool. The Dean shall document the reason for augmentation and notify the provost (or designee) in writing. Augmentation does not alter the composition requirements set forth above.

Conflicts of Interest and Recusal

A pool member shall not serve on the PTR committee for a faculty member with whom the pool member has any of the following relationships:

1. A direct or recent supervisory relationship within the prior three (3) years;
2. A close personal relationship that could reasonably be perceived to compromise objectivity;
3. An active financial relationship or shared financial interest;
4. A documented nepotism agreement;
5. Any other relationship that a reasonable person could conclude would impair impartial judgment.

Either the pool member or the faculty member under review may raise a conflict-of-interest concern. The Dean shall adjudicate conflict-of-interest claims and shall excuse a pool member from service on a specific case where a conflict is confirmed. Recusal from one case does not affect a pool member's eligibility to serve on other cases within the same review cycle, subject to service limits.

Timeline

Pool establishment shall be completed no later than August 1 of each year. Committee formation for individual PTR cases must be completed by the dates established in the annual PTR calendar prepared by the Office of the Provost.

.060 Review of Required Materials and Submission Procedures

Faculty undergoing PTR shall submit all required review materials through the University’s electronic faculty evaluation system. The electronic system serves as the official platform for compiling annual evaluations, workload assignments, supporting documentation, and all other components needed for a comprehensive review. This ensures consistency, transparency, and secure record retention consistent with university policy. In the event that the electronic faculty evaluation system is unavailable, inaccessible, or otherwise non‑operational for reasons beyond the faculty member’s control, the Office of the Provost shall authorize an alternative submission method. Faculty shall not be penalized, delayed, or disadvantaged due to system outages, technical failures, or administrative disruptions.

Required materials typically include (but are not limited to):

1. All Faculty Annual Performance Reviews since the last promotion or PTR, including ratings and written* feedback. Faculty shall submit a table outlining specific workload expectations in the categories of teaching, research/scholarship/creative activity, service/engagement, extension (if applicable), and administration (if applicable) for the previous 5 years.
   *The provost (or designee) may redact written comments as necessary to address privacy or confidentiality.
2. A current curriculum vitae documenting teaching, research/scholarship/creative activity, service/engagement, extension (if applicable), administration (if applicable), and other professional contributions. At a minimum, the curriculum vitae shall contain documentation for the previous 5 years.
3. A faculty prepared narrative or self-assessment detailing accomplishments since the last review, contextualizing workload expectations, and addressing progress toward long-term goals. This should not exceed two pages in length. A third page shall contain a list or statement of the goals for the next five years.
4. Supporting evidence of teaching, research/scholarship/creative activity, service/engagement, extension, and administration. The following should be included as applicable, defined by the previous workload.
   1. Teaching: Statement on teaching (e.g., classes taught, student advisement, curriculum developed) up to two pages in length. Evidence of instructional quality (e.g., student course ratings, peer evaluations, syllabi). Other evidence of scholarship and creativity that promote excellence in instruction (e.g., presentations, professional development).
   2. Research/ Scholarship/ Creative Activity: Statement on research up to two pages in length. A separate list of research publications and creative and scholarly achievements (can include links to media showcasing scholarly achievements) shall be included. A separate list of grants and contracts, successful and unsuccessful, shall be included, if applicable.
   3. Service/Engagement: Statement on service/engagement up to two pages in length.
   4. Extension: Statement on extension up to two pages in length. Evidence of extension activities, which may include a separate list of workshops, publications, media, etc.
   5. Administration: Statement on administration activities up to one page in length.
5. Any required plans or developmental documentation, such as prior professional development plans or improvement plans, when applicable. If a professional development plan was executed during the review period, a statement from the academic supervisor shall be included and clearly state whether the plan was completed successfully; if not, the academic supervisor shall specify the reasons for that determination.
6. Inclusion of sabbatical outcomes: The results of an approved sabbatical leave completed during the PTR review period shall be included in the PTR dossier and considered as evidence of performance within the relevant domain(s) of assigned workload.

All materials are uploaded by the faculty member to the electronic faculty evaluation system by the deadline established in the PTR timeline. Upon submission, the system automatically routes the dossier to the Academic Supervisor and the PTR review committee for review.

Once submitted, materials shall be considered the official PTR record for that cycle. Any additional documentation must be added through the same system to ensure full transparency and alignment with university records retention standards.

.070 Review Procedures and Assignment of Performance Ratings

A review of the materials submitted shall be conducted by the PTR review committee. The standards for the review are established by the faculty in the department or unit and articulated in the applicable departmental evaluation, promotion, and tenure guidelines. At a minimum, the PTR shall assess the faculty member’s performance relative to the assigned workload and approved unit criteria. If the PTR committee determines that the faculty member does not meet expectations, the committee shall clearly identify specific areas of deficiency with sufficient detail to inform the development of a Tenured Professional Development Plan (T-PDP).

The PTR review committee shall rate the overall performance according to the following scale:

1. Meets expectations
2. Does not meet expectations

A simple majority will be used to determine the overall performance rating. Simple majority is defined as one more than half.

Form of PTR Committee Feedback:

The PTR review committee shall produce a written evaluative report addressed to the academic supervisor. The written evaluative report shall reflect the collective judgment of the PTR review committee as determined by the simple majority vote. The narrative assessment shall present a single, coherent evaluation of the faculty member’s performance. Where the committee’s determination is not unanimous, the report shall note the existence of dissenting views and briefly summarize the substance of those views without attribution to individual committee members. The report shall include:

1. A narrative assessment of performance in each domain of assigned workload, aligned with the departmental/unit criteria;
2. An overall performance rating; and
3. Identification of concerns or deficiencies, if applicable, with sufficient specificity to support any required follow-up actions.

If a sabbatical leave was completed during the PTR review period, evaluation of sabbatical outcomes shall be based on the goals and expectations approved at the time of the sabbatical and shall not be treated as a gap or deficiency in performance.

Voting procedures and recorded vote:

The PTR review committee shall reach its determinations through a formal vote.

1. Each committee member shall cast one vote on the overall PTR outcome – Meets expectations or Does not meet expectations. Abstentions are not an option.
2. Voting shall occur after full committee discussion of the PTR materials and draft evaluative report.
3. The vote shall be recorded as a numerical tally (e.g., 4-1) and included in the committee’s written report.
4. Individual votes shall not be attributed by name in the report, but rather, attributed by “internal to department/unit” or “external to department/unit”. The final vote count shall be documented as part of the official PTR record.
5. In the event of a tie vote, the determination of the academic supervisor shall serve as the tie-breaking decision and be documented in the PTR record.

Transmission of PTR materials:

Academic supervisor review and decision. Following completion of the PTR review committee’s written report and recorded vote, the academic supervisor shall prepare a separate written letter to accompany the PTR record. The letter shall:

1. State whether the academic supervisor supports or does not support the PTR review committee’s overall determination; and
2. If the academic supervisor does not support the committee’s determination, identify and document specific evidence supporting the alternative assessment, with reference to the PTR materials, assigned workload, and applicable departmental criteria.

The academic supervisor shall forward the full PTR record through the University’s electronic faculty evaluation system to the dean. The record shall include the PTR review committee’s report and recorded vote and the academic supervisor’s letter.

Dean review and decision. Upon receipt, the dean shall review the complete PTR record and prepare a written letter stating whether the dean supports or does not support the PTR committee and academic supervisor’s determination. If the dean does not support the committee and/or the academic supervisor’s determination, the dean’s letter shall clearly identify the evidence supporting that conclusion. The dean shall then forward the complete PTR record, including the dean’s letter, through the electronic faculty evaluation system to the provost (or designee) for final review and approval.

Provost review and decision. Upon receipt, the provost (or designee) shall review the complete PTR record and prepare a written letter stating whether the provost supports or does not support the prior determinations of the PTR committee, academic supervisor, and/or dean. If the provost does not support the prior determinations, the provost’s letter shall clearly identify the evidence support that conclusion.

Faculty member notification. Upon final approval of the PTR outcome, the faculty member, academic supervisor, and dean shall be transmitted a copy of the PTR review. A copy the PTR review shall be placed in their faculty personnel file. The PTR review file shall consist of the letters from the PTR committee, academic supervisor, dean, and provost.

This completes the PTR process.

If the result of the PTR review is Meets Expectations then the faculty member returns to the standard review cycle. If the determination of the review is Does not meet expectations, then the next step is to develop a tenured faculty professional development plan. This process is described in further detail in the following section (.080).

.080 Tenured Professional Development Plan (T‑PDP)

Purpose: Tenured faculty members who receive a Does not meet expectations post-tenure review evaluation will be placed on a one-year improvement plan (T-PDP), developed with input from the faculty member and academic supervisor and approved by the appropriate dean and provost (or designee). The one-year improvement plan shall set goals that address the deficiencies noted in the post-tenure review and which can reasonably be achieved in one academic year. Faculty who do not satisfactorily complete the improvement plan are subject to dismissal (see Handbook Appendix M), reassignment, or other personnel actions, as determined by the provost.

Timeline: The T-PDP timelines are structured to allow sufficient time for development, approval, and implementation without compressing statutory and policy-required review periods.

Collaborative Development: The academic supervisor and faculty member collaboratively develop the T‑PDP, based upon the written feedback and recommendations of the PTR review committee. This shall be completed within 4 weeks of receiving a PTR decisions that requires a T-PDP.

Required Elements of the T-PDP:

1. Summary of the PTR outcome outline the challenges identified;
2. Specific remediation steps/actions;
3. Explicit outcomes/success metrics;
4. Deadlines for steps and a final completion date—the completion date should be one year from the start date;
5. Needed resources;
6. Schedule for written feedback from the immediate academic supervisor at each milestone; and
7. Reminder of potential next steps if the faculty member fails to meet the outlined expectations (i.e., Faculty who do not satisfactorily complete the improvement plan are subject to dismissal, reassignment, or other personnel actions, as determined by the provost).

Approval: The T‑PDP must be approved by the immediate academic supervisor, dean, and finally by the provost (or designee) within 14 calendar days of the T-PDP being finalized with the faculty member (i.e., the date the faculty member signs acknowledgement of the agreed upon T-PDP). A copy of the approved T‑PDP shall be transmitted to the faculty member.

Acknowledgment: The faculty member shall acknowledge understanding by returning a signed copy to the provost (or designee), immediate academic supervisor, and dean within 7 calendar days. A copy shall be placed in the faculty personnel file.

Compliance: Faculty are expected to fully participate and comply. Willful non‑compliance or refusal to collaborate in developing the T‑PDP may be addressed under applicable disciplinary provisions of the University Handbook, Policies and Procedures Manual, and Kansas Board of Regents policies.

.085 Modifications to an Active T‑PDP

Approved changes may be made when circumstances beyond the faculty member’s control warrant adjustment. Faculty‑initiated requests must include supporting documentation. Where protected personal information is involved (e.g., FMLA, ADA), determinations are handled under university policy and provided to the immediate academic supervisor to inform any warranted modification. All changes require review and approval by the immediate academic supervisor, dean, and provost (or designee).

.086 Review of a Completed T‑PDP

Faculty Report: By the final completion date specified in the approved T-PDP, the faculty member shall submit a written T‑PDP outcomes report through the University’s electronic faculty evaluation system to the academic supervisor. The report shall document progress toward and completion of the required actions and outcomes specified in the T-PDP.

Academic Supervisor Evaluation: Within 14 calendar days of receipt of the faculty member’s outcomes report, the academic supervisor shall provide a written evaluation stating whether the faculty member has successfully met or not met the terms of the T-PDP. The evaluation shall reference specific evidence from the T-PDP, interim feedback, and the outcomes report.

The academic supervisor shall transmit the evaluation, along with the full T-PDP record, to the dean through the University’s electronic faculty evaluation system and provide a copy to the faculty member.

Dean Evaluation: Within 14 calendar days of receipt of the complete T-PDP record, the dean shall review the materials and prepare a written evaluation stating whether the dean supports or does not support the academic supervisor’s determination. If the dean does not support the determination, the dean’s evaluation shall clearly identify the evidence supporting the alternative conclusion.

The dean shall forward the complete record, including the dean’s evaluation, through the electronic faculty evaluation system to the provost (or designee) for final review and decision.

.089 Disposition and Outcomes

Provost Decision: Within 14 calendar days of receipt, the provost (or designee) issues a decision regarding process propriety and whether the faculty member successfully met the T‑PDP terms, with notification to the faculty member, immediate academic supervisor, PTR review committee chair, and dean.

Successful Completion: The faculty member returns to the regular standard PTR cycle with the next PTR occurring during the fifth year following the successful completion of the T-PDP. In the first year following completion, PTR materials may inform the F‑APR for addressed domains.

Failure to Meet T‑PDP Terms: If the final decision is that terms were not met, the provost may recommend one more year of T-PDP (maximum of two years per KBOR policy), initiate dismissal‑for‑cause, or other actions consistent with the University Handbook, Policy and Procedures Manual, and KBOR policies. The faculty member may file a grievance in accordance with University Handbook, Appendix G: Administrative Appeal and Grievance Policy and Hearing Procedures.

.100 Discontinuation of PTR

At any stage, if a faculty member resigns or submits, and is approved, for retirement or phased retirement, the University shall discontinue the PTR process.

.110 Dispute Resolution

Disputes not otherwise resolved at the unit/college level shall be promptly referred to the provost (or designee) for resolution, consistent with the University Handbook, PPM, KBOR polices, and applicable grievance procedures (e.g., Appendix G or Appendix M in the University Handbook).

The faculty member under review may appeal the PTR committee’s decision to the Board of Regents. Any appeal to the Board of Regents pursuant to this subsection shall be filed with the Board’s vice president for academic affairs within 30 days of the PTR committee’s decision. Such appeal shall be limited to procedural grounds.

.120 Confidentiality and Records

All PTR materials are personnel records handled in accordance with university policy and applicable law. Official PTR records shall be maintained by the Office of the Provost in accordance with the university’s records retention schedules. All PTR results are reported, in the aggregate, to KBOR annually in accordance with their reporting requirements.

.130 Roles and Responsibilities

Faculty Member

1. Participates in the post-tenure review (PTR) process in accordance with university policy and timelines.
2. Submits required PTR materials and supporting documentation by established deadlines.
3. Participates in PTR committee composition input, as provided by policy.
4. Collaborates in the development of a Tenured Professional Development Plan (T-PDP), if required.
5. Completes required actions, meets established milestones, and submits any required outcomes or completion reports related to an approved T-PDP.
6. Acknowledges receipt and understanding of PTR and T-PDP determinations consistent with university procedures.

Academic Supervisor

1. Notifies faculty members when PTR is scheduled or triggered and provides required written notifications.
2. Recommends PTR review committee membership and coordinates committee formation consistent with policy requirements.
3. Provides relevant contextual information regarding assigned workload, unit criteria, and prior evaluations, as appropriate.
4. Reviews PTR materials and prepares a written supervisory assessment indicating whether they support the PTR committee’s determination, with documented rationale when applicable.
5. Collaborates with the faculty member in developing a T‑PDP when required, provides written feedback on progress at defined milestones, and evaluates completion of the T‑PDP.
6. Forwards required PTR and T‑PDP materials, evaluations, and recommendations to the dean in accordance with policy timelines.

PTR Review Committee

1. Conducts an independent review of submitted PTR materials using approved departmental/unit criteria.
2. Deliberates and reaches a determination through formal vote.
3. Produces a written evaluative report reflecting the committee’s collective judgment, including required narrative assessments, identification of concerns (if any), and the recorded vote.
4. Submits the committee’s report and vote to the academic supervisor by established deadlines.

PTR Review Committee Chair

1. Coordinates committee meetings and deliberations.
2. Oversees preparation, completion, and timely submission of the committee’s written evaluative report and recorded vote.
3. Serves as the primary point of contact for procedural questions related to the committee’s work.

Dean

1. Reviews the complete PTR and/or T-PDP record, including committee and academic supervisor recommendations.
2. Issues a written determination indicating whether the dean supports or does not support the prior recommendation, with documented rationale when applicable.
3. Forwards the complete record with comments to the provost (or designee) in accordance with policy timelines.

Provost (or Designee)

1. Provides final review and approval of PTR outcomes and T-PDP determinations.
2. Ensures consistency, due process, and alignment with university policy and Kansas Board of Regents requirements.
3. Issues final decisions related to PTR outcomes, T-PDP completion, and any resulting personnel actions.
4. Oversees record maintenance, reporting, and compliance with applicable grievance and appeal procedures.

.140 Timeline (Two submission periods)

Review periods are structured to provide sufficient and comparable time for PTR review committee deliberation and for academic supervisor, dean, and provost evaluation, while ensuring timely completion of the post-tenure review process. In the spring submission cycle, the academic supervisor review period may be extended to account for spring break and ensure adequate time for review and documentation. This will be accounted for in the official yearly calendar.

The Office of the Provost shall publish the official yearly PTR calendar by July 10 of each year. The yearly calendar shall specify applicable deadlines, review periods, and submission windows for that academic year. Faculty and administrators must consult the yearly PTR calendar for official dates and deadlines.

Notification: By April 30 of the prior academic year, tenured faculty due to undergo post-tenure review will be notified and notified regarding which submission cycle they should follow.

.160 Questions

Direct questions regarding this appendix to the Office of the Provost, Kansas State University. Email: facultyaffairs@k-state.edu.