University Policy 4380
Effective Date
January 1987
Last Revision Date
August 10, 2026
Responsible Party
Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, (208) 426-1202
Scope and Audience
This policy applies to tenured University faculty, excepting deans, associate deans, assistant deans, and vice provosts.
Additional Authority
- NWCCU Standard 2.F.4
- Idaho State Board of Education Policy, Section II.G. (Policies Regarding Faculty – Institutional Faculty Only)
- Idaho State Board of Education Policy, Section II.L. (Discipline – Adequate Cause – All Employees)
- Idaho State Board of Education Policy, Section II.M. (Grievance and Appeal Procedures – All Employees)
- University Policy 4000 (Faculty Code of Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct)
- University Policy 4290 (Annual Faculty Performance Evaluation)
- University Policy 4310 (Faculty Tenure and Promotion Committee Duties and Composition)
- University Policy 4340 (Faculty Tenure and Promotion Guidelines)
- University Policy 4720 (Faculty Due Process Policy)
1. Policy Purpose
To establish 1.) policy and procedures to fulfill the Faculty’s professional responsibility to and the Idaho State Board of Education’s requirement that,
at intervals not to exceed five (5) years following the award of tenure or achieving the rank of professor, whichever is later in time, the performance of each tenured faculty member be reviewed by members of their department or unit and the department chairperson or unit head. The periodic performance review of tenured faculty is intended to support continued professional growth, recognize achievement, and ensure accountability to the institution’s mission. The review process must respect academic freedom and be used to affirm contributions, guide improvement, and support faculty excellence. (see Idaho State Board of Education Policy, Section II.G.10).
And to establish 2.) policy and procedures for the selection of professors to receive a Professorial Performance Award, intended for the purposes of retaining and rewarding faculty at the rank of professor with sustained, high-level and high-impact performance during the evaluation period.
2. Policy Statement
2.1 Periodic Review (Standard Review)
The Idaho State Board of Education requires that the performance of each tenured faculty be reviewed every five (5) years following the receipt of tenure by the faculty members of their department or equivalent unit and the department/unit leader. The faculty member’s performance is reviewed as to their continuing effectiveness in teaching/librarianship, research or creative activities, service, other assigned responsibilities, and overall contributions to the department, Boise State University, their discipline, and/or their community (see University Policy 4000 – Faculty Code of Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct). Departments/units must establish standards for post tenure review aligned with this policy and reflective of the faculty member’s tenure home. Department standards must be approved by the college dean and the provost.
In addition, SBOE Policy II.G.10(c) requires that “[e]ach institution must submit an annual report to the Board related to post-tenure review outcomes that includes the number of reviews conducted, the number of performance improvement plans resulting from the post tenure review process, and the justification for not dismissing faculty who fail to meet the requirements of a post-tenure performance improvement plan.”
2.2 Professorial Performance Award
The Professorial Performance Award recognizes Professors who have sustained high-level, high-impact performance at the rank of Professor throughout the defined five-year post-tenure review period across multiple areas of their assigned responsibilities. Eligibility for consideration does not imply that the Award will be granted. Eligibility is limited to the periodic review cycle and performance must be demonstrated within the defined review period. Standards for the Award are defined in Section 4.3.4 of this policy.
This approach to post-tenure review is consistent with guidance from the American Association of University Professors, which emphasizes that post-tenure review should support both faculty development and the recognition of meritorious performance.
3. Definitions
3.1 Academic Freedom
The freedom of teachers, students, and academic institutions to pursue knowledge wherever it may lead, without undue or unreasonable interference. At the minimum, academic freedom means that faculty are entitled to freedom to engage in the entire range of activities involved in the production of knowledge, including choosing a research focus, presenting research findings to colleagues, and publishing research findings; the freedom to determine the content of and instructional methodologies used in their courses (subject to institutional curriculum development processes, institutional and Idaho State Board of Education policies, and accreditation requirements); and the freedom to participate in institutional governance (see University Policy 4000 – Faculty Code of Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct).
3.2 Disciplinary Action
Dismissal, suspension without pay, and/or involuntary demotion are actions that may be taken for Adequate Cause with regard to a Faculty Member. Disciplinary Action does not include administrative decisions, including without limitation, decisions in such matters as denial of tenure, denial of promotion, position description, performance evaluation, salary determination, and/or to challenge the contents of personnel files (see section 6 in University Policy 4000 – Faculty Code of Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct).
3.3 Sustained, High-Level, High-Impact Performance (for the Professorial Performance Award)
For the Professorial Performance Award, candidates must demonstrate “Sustained, High-Level, High-Impact Performance” in at least two areas of assigned responsibility. Sustained, High-Level, High-Impact Performance means a pattern of contributions at the level defined by the unit’s approved standards for promotion to the rank of Professor that is sustained over the entire five (5)-year review period and that also demonstrates impact, scope, leadership, innovation, recognition, or other discipline-appropriate indicators of “high-level, high-impact performance.” Such performance is not established by sustained satisfactory performance alone, repeated annual ratings at the upper range of the evaluation scale (e.g., “exceeds expectations”), the absence of deficiencies, or a high volume of activity without clear evidence of impact.
Performance that satisfies expectations for the rank of Professor in an area of responsibility, without evidence of broader impact, does not by itself meet this standard.
3.4 Professorial Performance Award
The Professorial Performance Award recognizes faculty members at the rank of Professor who demonstrate Sustained, High-Level, High-Impact Performance, as defined above, across at least two areas of their assigned responsibilities in teaching, scholarship, service, and other areas as applicable. Such performance reflects a sustained record of contributions that demonstrate impact, scope, leadership, innovation, recognition, or other discipline-appropriate indicators in at least two areas of responsibility.
The Award is an honor, not a form of promotion review or the creation of a “senior professoriate.” It is intended to recognize professors whose work exemplifies the expectations of the rank and to reward those who sustain such contributions over time. Eligibility for consideration does not imply that the Award will be granted.
The Professorial Performance Award includes a base salary increase, in addition to any increase provided through the State Change in Employee Compensation (CEC)process, when applicable.
3.5 Standard Review
A standard review is the process by which all tenured faculty are reviewed during the post-tenure review process as to their continuing effectiveness in teaching/librarianship, scholarship, service, other assigned responsibilities, and overall contributions to Boise State University, their profession, and their community.
4. Responsibilities and Procedures
4.1 Shared Responsibilities for Tenured Faculty Success
As stated in the Faculty Code of Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct (University Policy 4000), “The administration and the Faculty have a joint responsibility to protect and encourage Faculty in their teaching, learning, scholarship, university and public service, and efficient and effective operations of the University.” As applied to tenure, that shared responsibility requires tenured faculty to continue to meet standards and expectations. At the same time, this shared responsibility requires the university “to create a climate that strives for Inclusion and Equity and is suitable for Scholarship, effective teaching and learning, and service so all Faculty, Staff, and Students can thrive.”
4.1.1 University
The University recognizes that the granting of tenure for university faculty is a vital protection of free inquiry and unimpeded intellectual debate. The grant of indeterminate tenure to faculty members represents an enormous investment of university and societal resources. The University is responsible for providing guidance for continuing and meaningful faculty development, assisting faculty in enhancing their professional skills and achieving their professional goals, and ensuring that faculty members are meeting their responsibilities to the University. The periodic review of tenured faculty requires that the university offer opportunities and rewards for this continual growth and professional development.
4.1.2 Tenured Faculty
The faculty who earn tenure do so only after rigorous review to establish that their teaching, scholarly, creative, or research activity, librarianship, and service meet the highest standards and are congruent with the needs of the university and the expectations of their unit. To ensure that tenured faculty continue to meet those standards, they participate in performance reviews at the university, annually and periodically, over the course of their careers, each serving a different purpose in their professional development and career progress:
- The annual evaluation of faculty performance conducted by their supervisors, which is a summative review and is part of all the other reviews listed below;
- A multi-year comprehensive peer review for advancement in rank (promotion) and tenure, which is a summative review; and
- A five-(5) year comprehensive, periodic peer review of tenured faculty, which is both a formative review to support a tenured faculty member’s continued growth as a scholar, teacher, and member of the university community and a summative review.
The periodic review of tenured faculty requires that faculty members continue to grow professionally and contribute to the university, students, the community, and their discipline.
In no case should post-tenure review be used to shift the burden of proof from the institution’s administration (to show cause why a tenured faculty member should be dismissed) to the individual faculty member (to show cause why they should be retained).
4.2 Procedures: Standard Review
Barring exigent circumstances, a faculty member who does not submit the required materials for post-tenure review after official notification of the requirement will receive an automatic unacceptable evaluation, unless the failure to submit is due to exigent circumstances beyond the faculty member’s control, as determined by the Provost upon documented request for an extension.
4.2.1 Notification and Eligibility for Periodic Review
Tenured faculty members will be reviewed every five (5) years following the receipt of tenure with the review occurring in the unit(s) that conducts the faculty member’s annual evaluation. This review covers the five-year period leading up to the review. Post-tenure review should never supplant annual evaluation by infringing on the purpose of the annual evaluation process.
Each year, the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs notifies department/unit leaders and deans, in writing, as to the members of their units whose performance is to be reviewed during the year and as to the dates by which review procedures are to be completed. The Provost’s Office will notify eligible faculty by April 1 of their fourth (4th) year that they will undergo review during the fall of their fifth (5th) year.
4.2.2 Standard Review Eligibility Exceptions
Sabbatical Leave: Sabbatical leaves are considered part of the faculty member’s five (5)-year cycle, however, the review may be postponed by one year if it falls in a year when the faculty member is on sabbatical leave.
Other Forms of Leave: Family or medical leave during the review period may result in the review being postponed by one (1) year.
Phased Retirement: Faculty members on phased retirement or whose retirement date has been approved by the university no longer retain tenure and therefore will be exempt from review under this policy (see University Policy 4470 – Faculty Voluntary Phased Retirement Program).
Associate Professors in the Promotion Process: When an associate professor applies for promotion to professor in a year when a periodic post-tenure review (PTR) would otherwise occur, the promotion review fulfills the PTR requirement, consistent with SBOE Policy II.G.10.d.
In these cases, a PTR form will accompany the promotion review materials at each level of review. This form will indicate whether the candidate’s performance is satisfactory or unsatisfactory for PTR purposes.
Regardless of whether the faculty member was otherwise due for PTR, a successful promotion to professor resets the periodic review timeline. The next PTR will occur five years after the effective date of promotion to professor.
Administrative Positions: When a tenured faculty member steps down from an administrative position, their timeline for periodic review is reset beginning year 1 of their new faculty employment contract so long as said administrative appointment lasted at least two years. If the administrative appointment was less than three (3) years and the faculty member retained assigned responsibilities in teaching, research, and service during the administrative appointment then the periodic review timeline will not be adjusted.
4.2.3 Unit Policy Requirements for Standard Review
Departments/units must establish standards for minimum satisfactory performance during the post-tenure review period. Copies of the unit’s approved criteria and procedures for post-tenure review must be provided to faculty members in the unit. It is recommended that these criteria and standards be included in the unit’s policies and procedures upon initial hire.
After earning tenure, a faculty member’s professional needs and goals change over time, so a periodic review must be responsive to where a faculty member is in their career development and be consistent with their workload if it is to be effective. Post-tenure review must be conducted in a manner that respects the rights of faculty members involved, including academic freedom, tenure, and due process. Tenured faculty performance must be determined by criteria established by the individual’s academic unit.
The written standards for faculty post-tenure review should be developed and periodically reviewed by the faculty and approved by the dean and the provost. The basic standard for appraisal should be whether the faculty member under review discharges conscientiously and with professional competence the duties appropriately associated with their position, not whether the faculty member meets the current standards for the award of tenure or promotion.
4.2.4 Define Unit Standards for Satisfactory and Unsatisfactory Performance
The unit policy must define standards for minimum satisfactory performance. The basic standard for appraisal should be whether the faculty member under review discharges conscientiously and with professional competence the duties appropriately associated with their position, not whether the faculty member meets the current standards for the award of tenure or promotion. At a minimum, the standards should:
a. State the expectations of the unit for tenured faculty in the areas of teaching/librarianship, scholarship, service, other assigned responsibilities, and overall contributions to the department (as appropriate to the unit and position) consistent with University Policy 4000 (Faculty Code of Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct);
b. Describe those expectations in light of disciplinary practices, workload assignments, and the overall mission of the unit as part of Boise State University;
The standards must remain sufficiently flexible to accommodate faculty with differing responsibilities, strengths, and interests who contribute to the mission of the institutions in distinct ways and to accommodate the variation in a faculty member’s activities over time (e.g., serving as an academic leader in the department/program, college/school, or university; developing new academic programs; shifting workload from scholarly activity to teaching and/or service and vice versa; community engagement work; serving as a leader in a professional organization; significantly changing one’s scholarly agenda; and so on). They must also recognize that innovative work may take time to reach fruition and may sometimes not yield results.
4.2.5 Review Committee Composition
The unit policy must also describe the composition of the Post-Tenure Review Committee, voting responsibilities, and confidentiality expectations based on the following:
- The faculty member under review will be reviewed by a Post-Tenure Review Committee. A unit’s existing Promotion and Tenure or Personnel Committee may also function as the Post-Tenure Review Committee. However, if the unit’s P&T Committee functions at a school or college level, as well, the unit would need a separate Post-Tenure Review Committee, so as to avoid duplicative assessments of a faculty member’s performance.
- Alternatively, the unit may create a process for assembling a Post-Tenure Review Committee that is different from an existing peer review committee. The Post-Tenure Review Committee must meet the following requirements:
- The faculty member who is under review may not serve on the review committee.
- An administrator with evaluative/direct supervisory responsibilities (e.g., department/unit leader), who manages and oversees tenured faculty may not serve on the review committee.
- Only tenured faculty on the committee may vote.
- The committee shall consist of a minimum of three tenured faculty members and may include faculty from other promotion/tenure units, if needed and/or relevant, contingent upon their willingness and availability to serve.
In the event that the College Promotion and Tenure Committee must review a faculty member’s progress on a Performance Improvement Plan (see section 4.4), a member of the department/unit’s Post-Tenure Review Committee who also serves on the college-level committee cannot cast a vote on both committees.
4.2.6 Identify required materials and any allowable unit additions
Unit policy should state whether the Faculty Member’s Statement in Section 4.2.8 is required or optional and should identify any required materials beyond what is required below.
4.2.7 Establish a process for reviewing standards
The written standards for faculty post-tenure review should be developed and periodically reviewed by the faculty and approved by the dean.
4.2.8 Standard Review Materials
The years under review are the five (5) most recent academic years prior to the evaluation. The reviewee submits the following materials to the designated peer review committee:
a. Required
i. Current CV
ii. Annual performance evaluations from the period under review, which must include workload information within each evaluation.
b. Optional
i. Faculty Member Statement: the faculty member under review may choose to provide a brief narrative statement of their activities in teaching, scholarship, service, and other assigned responsibilities during the review period. The statement should explain these activities in relation to the faculty member’s assigned workload, unit expectations, and role, in order to support evaluation of a faculty member’s continuing effectiveness in the duties associated with their position, as defined by the unit’s approved standards. The statement may also include a brief discussion of professional goals and anticipated contributions over the next five (5) years. Faculty members with joint appointments should address their activities in relation to the expectations of each unit. The statement must not exceed four (4) pages
ii. Additional materials required by the unit.
4.2.9 Tenured Faculty in Joint Appointments
Faculty members with joint appointments will submit the required Post-Tenure Review materials that reflect the representative effort for each unit to the department/unit leader of their administrative home. The review committee for faculty members holding joint appointments must include one member from both units.
4.2.10 Tenured Faculty in Administrative Positions
Tenured faculty members serving in administrative positions below the level of the dean, excluding associate and assistant deans, and vice provosts–are also subject to periodic review and are eligible for the Professorial Performance Award, when they retain assigned responsibilities in teaching, research/creative activity, and/or service.
For these faculty members,
- the dean’s designee shall take the place of the department/unit leader in the review process;
- the Post-Tenure Review materials shall include administrative accomplishments; and
- to the extent possible, the review committee should include at least one (1) administrative faculty.
Per Idaho State Board of Education Policy II.G § 10 (e), tenured academic administrators must be evaluated in accordance with the institution’s policy for evaluating academic administrators, and “[a]nnual performance reviews or an alternative comprehensive review strategy may be more appropriate for academic administrators.” At Boise State, University Policy 4530 and University Policy 4520 require academic administrators to be evaluated annually and then comprehensively every three years. Accordingly, tenured academic administrators serving as deans, assistant or associate deans, vice provosts, or in similar positions are not subject to the periodic review process in this policy and are not eligible for the Professorial Performance Award.
4.2.11 Standard Review Process and Recommendations
Department/unit leaders will initiate the process and ensure unit member participation and input into the review process according to the requirements set forth by their colleges, academic units, and this policy. All those involved in the evaluation process must recognize that it is a confidential personnel matter and take appropriate steps to protect confidentiality. The review shall be carried out free of bias or prejudice by factors such as race, religion, sex, color, national origin, sexual orientation, ethnicity, age, disability, political affiliation, or veteran status.
Faculty Response Parameters: At each stage of review, the faculty member may submit one written response within five (5) working days of receipt. The response shall be appended to the review file. The committee may revise its recommendation in light of the faculty member’s response. Any revision must be approved under the committee’s normal voting procedures, signed, and dated. The final recommendation, any faculty response, and any revision shall be forwarded to the next level of review by the published deadline. No adverse inference shall be drawn from submitting or not submitting a response.
In the event that the dean, Provost, or University President disagrees with the recommendation of the designated review committee and/or the department/unit leader, the administrator must provide a letter with the rationale based on the evidence in the record and the unit’s approved standards.
- The burden of proof lies with the administrator to demonstrate that the recommendation is not supported by the evidence or is inconsistent with the applicable standards challenging the recommendation;
Faculty Appeal Parameters: An appeal process can be initiated at the faculty member’s discretion and arbitrated by the Faculty Senate’s Faculty Grievance Committee. At the conclusion of the appeal process, the Faculty Grievance Committee makes a recommendation to the University President. See Policy 4480, Faculty Grievance Process.
4.2.12 Review Committee Responsibilities
The Post-Tenure Review Committee will evaluate the faculty member’s overall performance and their contributions in their assigned areas of responsibility. Applying the standards of the unit, the committee will determine whether the faculty member’s performance in each area, as well as their overall performance, is satisfactory or unsatisfactory. The determination must be supported by a majority of the committee.
The Review Committee will submit their recommendation through a form in the electronic system. For a recommendation of “Satisfactory Performance” the form must include:
- The distribution of votes in support of the recommendation and against.
- Any dissenting assessments of the candidate’s materials based on specific evidence in the candidate’s materials and on the unit’s standards.
If the recommendation is “Unsatisfactory Performance,” the form must also include a written rationale for the recommendation based on specific evidence in the faculty member’s materials and on the unit’s standards.
The review committee will notify the faculty member of their recommendation through the electronic system by the published deadline.
The faculty member may submit one written response within five (5) working days of receipt. The response shall be appended to the review file. The committee may revise its recommendation in light of the faculty member’s response. Any revision must be approved under the committee’s normal voting procedures, signed, and dated. The final recommendation, any faculty response, and any revision shall be forwarded to the dean by the published deadline.
4.2.13 Department/Unit Leader Responsibilities
The department/unit leader will review the faculty member’s materials in terms of the unit’s standards for post-tenure review and determine whether the faculty member’s performance in each area, as well as their overall performance, is satisfactory or unsatisfactory.
If the department/unit leader deems the faculty member’s performance satisfactory, this will be indicated through a form in the electronic system. If the department/unit leader deems the faculty member’s performance unsatisfactory, the department/unit leader will provide a letter with a rationale for this recommendation based on specific evidence in the faculty member’s materials and on the unit’s standards.
After completing their recommendation, the department/unit leader shall provide notification of the recommendation to the faculty member under review by the published deadline.
The faculty member may submit one written response within five (5) working days of receipt. The response shall be appended to the review file, and the department/unit leader may revise their recommendation in light of the faculty member’s response. The final recommendation, any faculty response, and any revision shall be forwarded to the dean by the published deadline.
4.2.14 Dean’s Responsibilities
The dean will consider the assessments of the Post-Tenure Review Committee and the Department/Unit Leader and indicate an assessment of 1.) Satisfactory or 2.) Unsatisfactory.
If the dean deems the faculty member’s performance satisfactory, this will be indicated through a form in the electronic system. If the dean deems the faculty member’s performance unsatisfactory, the dean will provide a letter with a rationale for this recommendation based on specific evidence in the faculty member’s materials and on the unit’s standards.
After completing their recommendation, the dean shall provide notification of the recommendation to the faculty member under review by the published deadline.
The faculty member may submit one written response within five (5) working days of receipt (see Section 4.2.11). The response shall be appended to the review file, and the dean may revise their recommendation in light of the faculty member’s response. The final recommendation, any faculty response, and any revision shall be forwarded to the Provost by the published deadline.
Once the file is transmitted to the Provost, no further response or revisions shall be accepted for that review cycle.
4.2.15 Provost’s Responsibilities
The Provost will consider the recommendations of the Post-Tenure Review Committee, the Department/Unit Leader, and the dean and indicate their assessment. After the Provost’s review, the Office of the Provost will notify the faculty member, their respective dean, and department/unit leader of the outcome of the post-tenure review process.
4.2.16 Record Retention
The post-tenure review file will be placed in the faculty member’s personnel file.
4.2.17 Standard Review Outcomes
There are three (3) possible outcomes from the standard review process:
- Performance is Satisfactory. Performance at this level does not require action.
- Professorial Performance Award (full professors only). Eligibility for consideration of the Professorial Performance Award (see Section 4.3.3).
- Performance is Unsatisfactory. Performance at this level requires that a faculty member, in consultation with the periodic review committee, department/unit leader
,formulate plans and timelines (“Performance Improvement Plan”) to clearly resolve the issues identified in the post-tenure review process. See Section 4.4.
A faculty member whose record includes a pattern of unsatisfactory performance as defined in section 4.2.17 in any area of assignment during the previous five (5) years and who has not met previous requirements for improvement shall develop a Performance Improvement Plan in concert with their supervisor, the Post-Tenure Review Committee, and in consultation with Human Resources and Workforce Strategy (see section 4.4.1 – Developing a Performance Improvement Plan below). If the faculty member and their supervisor cannot agree upon the elements to be included in the Performance Improvement Plan, the faculty member may appeal to the dean who will make the final decision on disagreements. A faculty member who is under a Performance Improvement Plan is exempt from periodic review until the performance review period has elapsed, at which point the five (5)-year cycle for review is reset.
4.3 Professorial Performance Award
4.3.1 Nature of the Award
The Professorial Performance Award recognizes faculty members at the rank of Professor who demonstrate Sustained, High-Level, High-Impact Performance during the defined post-tenure review period.
Meeting the standards for the rank of Professor is necessary but not sufficient for the Award.
The Award recognizes professors whose sustained contributions across their assigned responsibilities—teaching, scholarship, service, and other areas as applicable—demonstrate impact, leadership, innovation, or other forms of professorial achievement over time. Such contributions must be demonstrated across multiple areas of responsibility and sustained throughout the review period, as defined in the standards for the Award.
The Award is not a promotion review, a cumulative career award, or a recognition based solely on annual performance evaluations. A finding of Satisfactory Performance confirms continued professional competence but does not establish that the standards for the Award have been met.
The Award differs from the Distinguished Professor title, which recognizes extraordinary, career-defining contributions across all assigned areas of faculty responsibility. The Professorial Performance Award recognizes Sustained, High-Level, High-Impact Performance in at least two areas of responsibility during a defined review period and includes a base salary increase but does not confer a permanent title.
4.3.2 Distinction Among Promotion, Standard Review, and the Professorial Performance Award
The following clarifies the different purposes and standards associated with promotion to Professor, standard post-tenure review, and the Professorial Performance Award. These processes serve distinct evaluative functions and are not interchangeable.
- Promotion to Professor evaluates cumulative career achievement and distinction since promotion to associate professor sufficient for advancement in academic rank under University Policy 4340.
- Periodic Review of Tenured Faculty (Standard Review) evaluates whether a tenured faculty member continues to discharge conscientiously and competently the responsibilities associated with their position.
- The Professorial Performance Award evaluates whether a faculty member already at the rank of Professor has sustained performance at that level during the defined post-tenure review period. Candidates must meet this requirement of demonstrating Sustained, High-Level, High-Impact Performance in at least two areas of responsibility, consistent with assigned workload.
Promotion to Professor and the Professorial Performance Award are anchored in the same benchmark for quality—performance consistent with the unit’s approved standards for the rank of Professor. However,
- Promotion evaluates whether a faculty member has achieved that level of performance for advancement in rank.
- The Professorial Performance Award evaluates whether that level of performance is sustained over time and demonstrated in at least two areas of responsibility, consistent with assigned workload. A record that would support promotion to Professor based primarily on strength in a single area may not meet the requirements for the Professorial Performance Award.
The Award is more selective not because it applies a higher standard than promotion to Professor, but because it requires that performance at that standard be sustained during the defined post-tenure review period and demonstrated across multiple areas of responsibility.
4.3.3 Professorial Award Eligibility Screening
The Office of the Provost and Human Resources will administratively verify the following eligibility conditions. Eligibility screening is limited to objective criteria and does not include an evaluation of performance quality.
To be eligible for consideration for the Professorial Performance Award, a faculty member must:
- Have been notified by the Office of the Provost that they are scheduled for periodic review of tenure.
- Be a full-time, tenured faculty member at the rank of professor and have been in rank at Boise State University for at least five (5) years since the last promotion or Professorial Performance Award. Professors are not eligible to apply until the beginning of their fifth (5th) year;
Eligibility for consideration does not imply that the Award will be granted.
Faculty members who have received disciplinary action as defined in section 3.2 during the review period may be deemed ineligible for the Award by the department/unit leader or dean, with approval from the Provost.
4.3.4 Standards for Award Determination
Following administrative verification of eligibility and a finding of Satisfactory Performance in the Standard Review, the candidate’s materials will be evaluated according to unit-defined standards for the Professorial Performance Award. A finding of Satisfactory Performance in the Standard Review confirms continued professional competence but does not establish that the standards for the Professorial Performance Award have been met.
To qualify for the Award, a candidate’s record throughout the defined five-year review period must:
- Fulfill the expectations for faculty members outlined in University Policy 4000 (Faculty Code of Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct), as documented in annual performance evaluations, demonstrated by a determination of “Satisfactory Performance” during the Standard Review;
- Demonstrate, throughout the defined five-year review period, Sustained, High-Level, High-Impact Performance in at least two (2) of the three (3) areas of responsibility, consistent with the faculty member’s assigned workload and the unit’s approved standards for promotion to Professor. Performance in the third area (depending on assigned workload) must meet the unit-defined expectations for a tenured faculty member at the rank of Professor, but need not meet the standard for the award; and
- Show sustained productivity at the rank of Professor during the post-tenure review period.
4.3.5 Minimum Required Elements for Unit PPA Standards
Departments/Units are responsible for defining specific standards and guidelines for the Professorial Performance Award aligned with the University PPA Standards. To ensure consistent and transparent application of the Professorial Performance Award (PPA), each unit’s PPA standards must include the following elements:
A. Definition of Sustained High-Level Performance
Unit standards must clearly define what constitutes Sustained, High-Level, High-Impact Performance in each area of assigned responsibility (teaching, scholarship, service, and/or other areas appropriate to the unit). For purposes of unit standards, Sustained, High-Level, High-Impact Performance must be demonstrated throughout the defined five-year review period.
The definition must:
- Distinguish Sustained, High-Level, High-Impact Performance from routine fulfillment of assigned duties;
- Distinguish qualifying Sustained, High-Level, High-Impact Performance from annual evaluation ratings of “meeting” or “exceeding expectations”; and
- Identify discipline-appropriate indicators and provide examples of contributions demonstrating impact, leadership, scope, innovation, or recognition, or other forms of influence consistent with the unit’s approved standards for the rank of Professor and sufficient to meet the standard for the Professorial Performance Award.
4.3.6 Alignment with Promotion and Workload Standards
Promotion-to-Professor standards serve as a benchmark for performance quality; the PPA evaluates whether performance at that standard is sustained over time and demonstrated across multiple areas throughout the review period.
Unit PPA standards must:
- Align with current, approved promotion-to-Professor standards under University Policy 4340;
- Be consistent with the unit’s approved workload policy; and
- Explain how assigned workload informs evaluation of qualifying Sustained, High-Level, High-Impact Performance in at least two areas of responsibility.
4.3.7 Two-Area Requirement
Unit standards must state that:
- Sustained, High-Level, High-Impact Performance must be demonstrated in at least two (2) areas of responsibility; and
- Performance in the third area (depending on assigned workload) must meet the unit-defined expectations for a tenured Professor but need not meet the standard for the Award.
- Standards must clarify how this determination is made in relation to assigned workload.
4.3.8 Evidence of Sustained, High-level, High-Impact Performance
Unit standards must identify the types of evidence used to evaluate performance and clarify that:
- Evidence must demonstrate a sustained record of contributions consistently throughout the five-year review period that meet the unit’s standards for the rank of Professor and support a determination of Sustained, High-Level, High-Impact Performance and
- Volume of activity or high annual evaluation ratings alone is not sufficient evidence for the award. Annual performance evaluations may provide context for continuity, workload distribution, and patterns of performance, but do not, by themselves, establish that the standards for the Professorial Performance Award have been met.
A. Approval and Periodic Review of Standards
Unit PPA standards must:
- Be recommended by a majority of the faculty eligible to vote under the unit’s bylaws;
- Be approved by the department/unit leader, dean, and Provost; and
- Be reviewed at least every five (5) years or whenever promotion-to-Professor standards are revised.
B. Review Committee Composition
The unit policy must also describe the composition of the Post-Tenure Review Committee, voting responsibilities, and confidentiality expectations per Section 4.2.5 above.
C. Identify Required Materials
Unit policy should identify any required materials beyond what is required in Section 4.3.6 below.
D. Establish a process for reviewing standards
Units must provide for review of the criteria at least every five (5) years or whenever standards for promotion to full professor change.
4.3.9 PPA Materials
Applications for the Professorial Award constitute supplemental material to the Standard Review materials defined in section 4.2.8. In addition to the Standard Review materials, candidates applying for the PPA must submit a concise set of supplemental materials that document and explain their record of performance during the defined five (5)- year review period and support evaluation of whether they demonstrate sustained, high-level, high-impact performance in at least two (2) areas of responsibility, consistent with their assigned workload and the unit’s approved PPA standards.
a. Required
The supplemental materials must include a Faculty Statement for the PPA. Because the Faculty Member’s Statement for Standard Review is optional unless required by the unit, PPA applications must be complete and able to be evaluated on their own, independent of whether such a statement is included in the Standard Review materials.
If a Faculty Member’s Statement was required and submitted as part of the Standard Review, the candidate may incorporate or adapt that statement for purposes of the PPA, provided that the resulting narrative fully addresses the PPA standards.
Faculty Statement for the PPA: The statement must explain the candidate’s record of performance during the defined five (5) year review period in relation to the unit’s approved standards for the Professorial Performance Award.
The statement must:
- identify the area(s) of responsibility in which the candidate is asserting sustained, high-level, high-impact performance;
- explain how the candidate’s work meets the unit’s definition of sustained, high-level, high-impact performance in those areas; and
- interpret the evidence in their record to demonstrate how performance reflects a level of quality consistent with the unit’s standards for promotion to Professor and is sustained across the review period.
The statement should be concise and focused on explaining the significance, scope, and sustained nature of the candidate’s work, rather than providing a comprehensive listing of activities.
b. Optional
Unit policies must specify any additional required components and may establish guidelines for organization, format, and types of evidence, provided they are consistent with this policy.
The total length of all PPA supplemental materials, including the Faculty Statement for the PPA, may not exceed ten (10) pages. The curriculum vitae, annual performance evaluations, and optional Faculty Member Statement are part of the Standard Review materials and do not count toward this page limit.
Supplemental materials must be selective and focused on explaining and providing evidence for sustained performance across the review period, rather than duplicating information available in the Standard Review materials.
4.3.10 PPA Review Process and Recommendations
A finding of Satisfactory Performance in the Standard Review establishes that the faculty member is meeting the expectations of their role, but does not establish that the standards for the Professorial Performance Award have been met.
Consideration for the Professorial Performance Award evaluates whether the candidate’s record during the same review period demonstrates Sustained, High-Level, High-Impact Performance, based on the unit’s approved standards and evidence from the review period.
If the outcome of the Standard Review is satisfactory, the candidate’s application for the Award will proceed. If the outcome is unsatisfactory, the application will not be considered.
Administrative verification of eligibility and a finding of Satisfactory Performance are prerequisites for review but do not establish that the standards for the Award have been met.
The number of Awards granted in a given cycle is not predetermined. Awards are based solely on whether candidates meet the established standards for the Professorial Performance Award, and not all eligible candidates will meet those standards.
Faculty Response Parameters: At each level of review, the optional faculty response is an opportunity to clarify factual information or context related to the review materials and application of approved unit standards. It may not include new documentation or evidence created after the submission deadline, nor may it contest the validity or content of the unit standards themselves. Responses are limited to factual correction or interpretive clarification and will be appended to the review file at each level of review. No adverse inference shall be drawn from submitting or not submitting a response.
A. Review Committee Responsibilities
Recommendation Letter with Justification:
The Post-Tenure Review Committee in the department will prepare a letter evaluating the candidate’s materials in terms of the criteria, standards, and guidelines established, along with a recommendation for or against the award. The recommendation letter must include the following:
- Justifications of the committee’s recommendation based on specific evidence in the candidate’s materials and on the unit’s standards;
- Dissenting assessments of the candidate’s materials based on specific evidence in the candidate’s materials and on the unit’s standards;
- The distribution of votes in support of the recommendation and against.
Evaluative conclusions must be based on evidence demonstrated during the defined five-year review period. Achievements outside this period may provide context but may not serve as the primary basis for determining whether standards have been met. The letter must clearly identify the standards applied, the evidence from the review period, and the reasoning connecting the evidence to those standards. Recommendation letters must be sufficiently clear that subsequent reviewers can evaluate the case based on the unit’s stated standards and cited evidence without requiring additional interpretation.
After completing its recommendation, the Post-Tenure Review Committee shall notify the faculty member under review by the published deadline and share the committee’s recommendation letter.
The faculty member may submit one written response within five (5) working days of receipt. The response shall be appended to the review file. The committee may revise its recommendation in light of the faculty member’s response. Any revision must be approved under the committee’s normal voting procedures, signed, and dated. The final recommendation, any faculty response, and any revision shall be forwarded to the dean by the published deadline.
B. Department/Unit Leader Responsibilities
The department/unit leader will review all evaluation materials. They will prepare a letter evaluating the candidate’s materials in terms of the criteria, standards, and guidelines established, along with a recommendation for or against the award based on specific evidence in the faculty member’s materials and on the unit’s standards.
After completing their recommendation letter, the department/unit leader shall notify the faculty member under review by the published deadline and share the letter of recommendation.
The faculty member may submit one written response within five (5) working days of receipt. The response shall be appended to the review file, and the department/unit leader may revise their recommendation in light of the faculty member’s response. The final recommendation, any faculty response, and any revision shall be forwarded to the dean by the published deadline.
C. Dean’s Responsibilities
The dean will review all application materials and recommendations to ensure that the evaluations are consistent with the standards and procedures established by the department for the Professorial Performance Award. They will indicate their recommendation of either Recommend for the Award or Recommend Against the Award based on specific evidence in the faculty member’s materials and on the unit’s standards.
a. After completing their recommendation letter, the dean shall provide notification of the recommendation to the faculty member under review by the published deadline.
b. The faculty member may submit one written response within five (5) working days of receipt (see 4.3.5). The response shall be appended to the review file, and the dean may revise their recommendation in light of the faculty member’s response. The final recommendation, any faculty response, and any revision shall be forwarded to the provost by the published deadline.
c. Once the file is transmitted to the Provost, no further response or revisions shall be accepted for that review cycle.
If any change has been made to the department’s recommendations, the dean must notify the candidate, in writing, of the change and its rationale. Within seven (7) working days after notification, such candidates have the opportunity to submit written statements of unresolved differences regarding their evaluations to the dean and to the Provost. All statements of unresolved differences will be included in the documentation to be forwarded to the next administrative level. All recommendations are forwarded to the Provost.
D. Provost’s Responsibilities
The Provost will review all application materials and recommendations to ensure that the evaluation process is conducted in a manner consistent with the standards and procedures approved by the unit.
4.3.11 PPA Outcome
a. Award Granted
The Professorial Performance Award will include a base salary increase for the faculty member (as determined by the Provost). Upon official notification from the Office of the Provost, Human Resources and Workforce Strategy will consolidate the Professorial Performance Award with salary increases resulting from annual evaluation and issue the candidate a contract that includes the candidate’s salary for the next fiscal year. The Professorial Performance Award will become part of the professor’s base salary.
b. Award not granted
If the PPA is not granted, the Standard Review outcome still stands. Candidates will be able to apply again at the time of their next scheduled periodic review of tenure.
4.4 Performance Improvement Plan Process (Triggered by Unsatisfactory Standard Review)
4.4.1 Developing a Performance Improvement Plan
The Post-Tenure Review Committee and department/unit leader will meet with the faculty member to develop a Performance Improvement Plan for up to a three (3)-year period (unless additional time is approved by the department/unit leader and the dean). The purpose of the Performance Improvement Plan is to address unsatisfactory performance in any area of performance before it becomes sufficiently serious to impair the faculty member’s overall performance. The Performance Improvement Plan should address specific areas for improvement identified during the post-tenure review process and identify actions to strengthen the faculty member’s performance.
The plan must:
- Describe specific reasons why performance has been unsatisfactory;
- Provide a list of specific, measurable outcomes needed to meet performance expectations in the future;
- Describe the process to be followed to achieve outcomes;
- Address the types of support that will be provided, if available, to facilitate the Performance Improvement Plan;
- Describe any alteration in job responsibilities that may be necessary to implement the Performance Improvement Plan (which may include redirecting the faculty member’s work responsibilities to particular areas of strength, according to the department/unit’s workload policy);
- Provide a specific and appropriate timeline for accomplishing the outcomes (typically one to two years, but can extend to three (3)-year period);
- Describe benchmarks and expectations;
- Describe the specific, appropriate criteria to be used in evaluating progress in the Performance Improvement Plan;
- Include the dates by which the Post-Tenure Review Committee will assess the faculty member’s progress toward the outcomes (see section 5.1).
4.4.2 Approval Process
The Performance Improvement Plan must be approved by the department/unit leader, the dean, the faculty member, and the Post-Tenure Review Committee.
4.4.3 Progress Reviews
It will be the responsibility of the department/unit leader and the Post-Tenure Review Committee to make a recommendation as to whether, at the end of the designated timeline, the faculty member whose performance was deemed not satisfactory has been successful in the completion of the Performance Improvement Plan. It is understood that the members of the Post-Tenure Review Committee will likely have changed since the faculty member’s initial periodic review, but those members must apply the same standards that were established when the Performance Improvement Plan was initially approved. The department/unit leader will report that finding to the appropriate administrative officer at least one (1) level above the faculty member’s unit.
a. Annual Department/Unit Leader Review: During the annual faculty evaluation process each year, the department/unit leader will review the faculty member’s progress toward achieving the goals or outcomes of the development plan. A report on the faculty member’s progress toward those goals or outcomes will be included in the faculty member’s annual performance evaluation.
b. Peer Review: The unit’s Post-Tenure Review Committee will review the faculty member’s progress at the end of the period defined in the Performance Improvement Plan.
4.4.4 Outcomes of the Progress Reviews
a. Achieves Performance Improvement Plan Goals
- If the Post-Tenure Review Committee determines the faculty member has met the conditions of the plan, the Committee will make a recommendation to the department/unit leader that the faculty member’s performance is satisfactory.
- If the department/unit leader concurs with the committee’s recommendation, the department/unit leader forwards the case to the dean for review.
- If the dean concurs with the committee and department/unit leader’s recommendation, the dean forwards the case to the Provost for review.
- If the Provost concurs, then the Performance Improvement Plan is considered complete and the Office of the Provost will notify faculty of the outcome of the post-tenure review process, and the post-tenure review file will be placed in the faculty member’s personnel file.
- If the faculty member’s performance is deemed satisfactory at the end of this process, the faculty member’s five (5)-year clock for periodic review of tenure will be reset and no further action will be taken.
b. Does Not Achieve Performance Improvement Plan Goals
If the Post-Tenure Review Committee determines that the faculty member has not achieved the
Performance Improvement Plan goals, then the Post-Tenure Review Committee will forward the case to the College Promotion and Tenure Committee (or its equivalent as defined in college policy) for their review according to the following process:
- If the Post-Tenure Review Committee determines that the faculty member has not achieved the Performance Improvement Plan goals as articulated in the Plan’s timeline, the faculty member may request a meeting with the committee within five (5) working days of the notification. If requested, the committee must grant a meeting with the faculty member within five (5) working days of the request. Within three (3) working days of meeting with the candidate, a final recommendation letter shall be added to the case materials and made available to the faculty member. The case materials will then be forwarded to the College Promotion and Tenure Committee.
- The College Promotion and Tenure Committee reviews the relevant case materials to ensure the process and policies are followed at each level. The College Committee then votes on whether the faculty member has achieved satisfactory performance or has not achieved.
- If the College Promotion and Tenure Committee determines that the faculty member has not achieved the Performance Improvement Plan goals, the faculty member may request a meeting with the committee within five (5) working days of the notification. If requested, the committee must grant a meeting with the faculty member within five (5) working days of the request. Within three (3) working days of meeting with the candidate, a final recommendation letter shall be added to the case materials and made available to the faculty member. The case materials will then be forwarded to the dean and the Provost.
- If the final majority vote of the College Promotion and Tenure Committees is that the faculty does not achieve satisfactory performance, then the case is forwarded to the dean, who will review the case materials and provide a letter to the Provost explaining the reasons for their recommendation.
- If the dean determines that the faculty member has not achieved the Performance Improvement Plan goals, the faculty member may request a meeting with the dean within five (5) working days of the notification. If requested, the dean must grant a meeting with the faculty member within five (5) working days of the request. Within three (3) working days of meeting with the candidate, a final recommendation letter shall be added to the case materials and made available to the faculty member. The case materials will then be forwarded to the Provost.
- If the dean and Provost determine the faculty member has not achieved the Performance Improvement Plan, they will determine the appropriate resolution, which may include disciplinary action or termination for adequate cause (see University Policy 4720 – Faculty Due Process and Appeal Procedures and University Policy 4480 – Faculty Grievance Procedure). If the dean and the Provost disagree on whether the faculty member has achieved the Performance Improvement Plan, the Provost makes the final decision.
- The Office of the Provost will notify faculty of the outcome of the post-tenure review process, and the post-tenure review file will be placed in the faculty member’s personnel file.
4.5 Disciplinary Action and Dismissal Procedures
4.5.1 Disciplinary Action
a. The Provost may implement Disciplinary Action if any of the following occur:
- The faculty member fails to participate in the Performance Improvement Plan process;
- The faculty member fails to achieve the performance outcomes of the Performance Improvement Plan by the established date(s); during the annual performance review by the department/unit leader; and/or after the final review of the Performance Improvement Plan by the Post-Tenure Review Committee.
b. Except for performance issues that meet the conditions for adequate cause, a single negative review cannot be the sole factor in revoking tenure, as it is only one measure in the ongoing evaluation of all faculty members.
4.5.2 Procedures Related to Dismissal
If a tenured faculty member’s performance is judged to have been consistently unsatisfactory during the period under review and/or during the annual progress reviews and/or during the final review for the Performance Improvement Plan, that performance rating may constitute adequate cause. In each case, the issue of whether or not adequate cause for dismissal exists is to be determined by an equitable procedure, affording protection to the rights of the faculty member and to the interests of the state of Idaho and its system of higher education. The burden of proof that adequate cause exists rests with the institution and its administrative officers and will be satisfied only by clear and convincing evidence in the record considered as a whole. In the event that the faculty member receives a Notice of Contemplated Action, the faculty member has the right to due process as defined in University Policy 4720 (Faculty Due Process and Appeal Procedures).
Appendix A: Periodic Review Timeline
Minor Amendment
April 18, 2025
Revision History
July 1995; July 2003; September 2011; January 2015; October 2016; August 02, 2024; November 24, 2025; August 10, 2026