FAQs: Periodic Review of Tenured Faculty

The State Board of Education requires that tenured faculty be reviewed at least once every five years. At Boise State, this review supports our shared commitment to accountability, student success, and professional development. It creates a structured opportunity for reflection, feedback, and, when applicable, recognition.

All tenured faculty must be reviewed at least once every five years after receiving tenure. This review covers the five-year period leading up to the review and does not replace the annual evaluation process. You’ll be notified by the Provost’s Office by April 1 of your fourth year after tenure, and the review will occur in the fall of your fifth year. See Policy 4380 Section 4.2.

Tenured faculty will complete one of the following, depending on their eligibility:

• A Standard Review, which is required of all tenured faculty.
• A Professorial Performance Award Review, which is an option for full professors who meet eligibility criteria.
  • The award review also satisfies the periodic standard review requirement.
  • For information about the Professorial Performance Award (PPA), including eligibility, criteria, and early application options, please refer to the Professorial Performance Award FAQs or see below.

For the Standard Review, there are two outcomes:

• Satisfactory Performance – No further action is needed.
• Unsatisfactory Performance – If your performance is deemed unsatisfactory, you will work with your department head and the peer review committee to develop an Improvement Plan, subject to review by the dean and Provost. See Policy 4380 Section 5.

The Professorial Performance Award is a $6,000 base salary increase awarded to full professors who demonstrate sustained, exemplary performance in their teaching, research or creative activity, service, and related responsibilities. According to University Policy 4380, “The Professorial Performance Award is an honor, not a form of promotion review or a creation of a ‘senior professoriate.’ It is intended both to recognize those professors whom faculty should emulate and to reward professors who demonstrate outstanding and continued performance at the University.” It is a merit-based recognition tied to the five-year post-tenure review process and is intended to celebrate ongoing achievement, encourage continued growth, and ensure that senior faculty contributions remain strong and impactful.

The PPA was established to:

• Recognize continued excellence among faculty who have already achieved the rank of full professor;
• Encourage ongoing innovation, leadership, and engagement by senior faculty;
• Strengthen the post-tenure review process by linking it to a rigorous, performance-based reward;
• Demonstrate publicly that the university values and supports faculty who remain highly productive and committed well beyond tenure.

Linking the award to the existing post-tenure review cycle:

• Ensures consistency and equity across departments and colleges;
• Reinforces the importance of post-tenure review by embedding a performance-based incentive;
• Aligns the time period with other comprehensive faculty review processes, like tenure and promotion.

This structure also allows the university to recognize faculty excellence while managing long-term budget commitments.

There is no fixed cap on the number of awards that are given each year, just as there are no fixed caps on the number of people who are granted tenure or promotion in a given year. Funding for promotional amounts are obligations of the university, regardless of the budget model. Receiving the award is dependent on meeting the approved departmental criteria for the award.

No. You are essentially competing against the criteria in your department for the PPA.

No. The department faculty have to hold one another accountable to applying the criteria for this award just as they do for tenure and promotion. If the committee recommends everyone who applies, regardless of their achievements or of meeting the department’s standards, then it’s inevitable that some people will not receive the award. The committee has to abide by the department-, chair-, dean- and provost-approved standards, and if they don’t, then they are potentially setting the applicant up for disappointment. 

If faculty want to support one another in receiving the award, they need to collectively define rigorous standards per the policy, support one another in reaching those standards, and apply those standards during the application process. See Policy 4380. Section 4.2.5A(b): “In defining standards, units must keep in mind that the Professorial Performance Award review process is a rigorous review of the faculty member’s performance. The Professorial Performance Award is neither a right accorded to every faculty member at the rank of Professor, nor granted simply as a result of a candidate’s routinely meeting assigned duties with a record free of notable deficiencies.”

The department’s standards must be approved by the dean and the Provost, and the dean and the Provost will look for evidence that the department committee has followed its standards.

For faculty who aspire to the award, the PPA can serve as a valuable professional development goal during the five-year post-tenure review cycle. Departments and colleges can support this growth through mentoring, peer collaboration, and encouragement to engage with university awards and recognitions that showcase excellence in teaching, research, creative activity, and service. These recognitions can serve as meaningful indicators of the types of contributions that align with the PPA.

Examples of university-level awards include but are not limited to:

Per Policy 4380:

Appendix A: Periodic Review Timeline

Unless you’ve communicated a valid reason (e.g., family or medical leave), not submitting materials results in an automatic unsatisfactory rating. The Provost’s Office will notify faculty of review requirements in advance and offer guidance throughout the process.

Per Policy 4380, Section 4.2.3A, “If an associate professor is eligible for post-tenure review during the same period they are applying for promotion to full professor, then a post-tenure review form will be included with the recommendations at each level indicating if, for the purposes of post-tenure review, the candidate’s performance is satisfactory or unsatisfactory.”

Per Policy 4380, Section 4.2.3A, “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.” Each year the Office of the Provost will review the list of those eligible for periodic review and adjust the timelines for faculty on that list who are on sabbatical during the review period.

Faculty on family or medical leave may also request a one-year deferral by contacting the Office of the Provost (provost@boisestate.edu).

These are the only exceptions to the standard five-year review cycle. See Policy 4380 Section 4.2.3A.

To be eligible, faculty must:

• 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; 
• Show evidence of sustained productivity in at least the last five (5) years before the performance review;
• Demonstrate that their productivity and exemplary performance are of a quality at or above that which would merit promotion to professor according to current approved departmental standards;
• Fulfill the expectations for faculty members outlined in University Policy 4000 (Faculty Code of Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct);
• Have not been subject to disciplinary action in the past five years

University Policy 4380, Section 4.2.3b

No. Applications are accepted as part of the scheduled post-tenure review cycle (every five years). However, in Fall 2025, to ease the transition to the new process, full professors who were reviewed in 2022, 2023, or 2024, had been in rank for five years, and meet the eligibility requirements may apply before their next scheduled review according to the schedule below (please note that faculty who were eligible for review in 2023 and 2024 were both reviewed in Spring 2024; no faculty were reviewed during 2024-2025). 

Faculty not granted the award must wait at least two academic years before reapplying. 

The Provost’s Office will notify eligible faculty and coordinate the application process with colleges.

Temporary Transition Plan

As noted above, aligning the PPA with the post-tenure review cycle aligns the time period with other comprehensive faculty review processes, like tenure and promotion. This structure:

• Helps ensure every eligible faculty member is reviewed regularly for performance;
• Prevents inequities in timing and expectations;
• Reinforces the importance of post-tenure review by embedding a performance-based incentive;
• Ensures that decisions are grounded in multi-level peer and administrative review;
• Supports long-term budget planning and sustainability.

While the current model may delay eligibility for some faculty, the early application option during Fall 2025 and Fall 2026 for those who had been in rank for five years and were reviewed between 2022–2024 helps mitigate this concern.

Standard Review Materials

• A current CV (not counted in page total)
• Your four most recent annual performance evaluations (five recommended; see below) (not counted in page total)
• An optional narrative statement (up to six pages) that highlights your contributions during the review period and your future goals (counted in the page total)

Professorial Performance Award Materials

• All of the above
• Any additional materials defined by the unit, per Section 4.2.8(A).

Faculty with joint appointments should address contributions in each unit. These materials are submitted through the university’s electronic system by the deadline communicated by the Provost’s Office.

Clarifications for 2025-2026 Cycle

As we prepare for the 2025–2026 cycle of periodic review for tenured faculty, including the Professorial Performance Award (PPA), questions have arisen about the interpretation of specific provisions in University Policy 4380, specifically about which documents are included in the total page limit. The Faculty Senate and the Provost’s Office have agreed on the guidance below for the current cycle (Fall 2025). These clarifications do not replace or revise the policy itself, but reflect reasonable interpretations of the existing language. Policy revisions may follow at a later date.

Here is a table summarizing the clarifications for the 2025–2026 review cycle:

• Does the current CV count toward the page limit?
  • No. In both PPA and standard periodic review, the CV is required but not included in the stated page limits. See Section 4.2.7 and Section 4.2.8(A).
• Do annual performance evaluations count toward the page limit?
  • No. In both PPA and standard periodic review, annual evaluations are required but not included in the stated page limits.
• How many annual evaluations should be submitted?
  • Although Section 4.2.8(A) refers to “the four most recent” annual evaluations, the review period for both standard review and PPA is defined in Section 4.2.3 as the five most recent academic years.
  • For this cycle, faculty are encouraged to include all five annual performance evaluations if available, to align with the policy’s stated review period.
  • For standard periodic review, does the six-page limit apply to the full packet or just the optional Faculty Member’s Statement?
  • The six-page limit applies only to the optional Faculty Member’s Statement. See Section 4.2.7.

If you are eligible for the PPA because your last periodic review was in 2022-2024, you should submit materials that cover the last five years (2020-2025).

For the Standard Review, the review will be conducted by:

• A peer Post-Tenure Review Committee composed of tenured faculty
  • Per Policy 4380, Section 4.3.1A: “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.”
• Your department chair or unit head
  • Per Policy 4380, Section 4.3.2A: “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.”
• Your dean
  • Per Policy 4380, Section 4.3.3A: “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.”
• The Provost
  • Per Policy 4380, Section 4.3.4A: “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 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.”

Each level makes an independent recommendation based on department-defined standards and university policy.

Your review will be conducted by:

• A peer Post-Tenure Review Committee composed of tenured faculty
  • Per Policy 4380, Section 4.3.1B: 
    • The Post-Tenure Review Committee in the department will prepare a written evaluation of the candidate’s materials in terms of the criteria, standards, and guidelines established, along with a recommendation for or against the award. The written evaluation 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.
  • The candidate’s materials will be forwarded to the department/unit head for review and recommendation, and then to the dean and Provost.
  • If the above review process results in a recommendation of “unsatisfactory performance” for the purposes of periodic review, then the process will proceed accordingly (see section 5 – Outcome of the Post-Tenure Review Process).”
• Your department chair or unit head
  • Per Policy 4380, Section 4.3.2B: “The department/unit head will review all evaluation 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/Satisfactory Performance; Recommend Against the Award/Satisfactory Performance, or Recommend Against the Award/Unsatisfactory Performance.”
• Your dean
  • Per Policy 4380, Section 4.3.3B: 
    • 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/Satisfactory Performance; Recommend Against the Award/Satisfactory Performance, or Recommend Against the Award/Unsatisfactory Performance.
    • A dean who does not agree with recommendations for the Professorial Performance Award made by a department/unit and the department/unit leader must attempt to reach a consensus through consultation. If this fails, the dean’s recommendation will be used. 
    • 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.”
• The Provost
  • Per Policy 4380, Section 4.3.4B: 
    • 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.
    • If the Provost does not agree with recommendations for Professorial Performance Awards made by subordinate administrators, an attempt must be made to reach a consensus through consultation. If this fails, the Provost’s decision will prevail. The candidate affected by the disagreement must be notified by the Provost, in writing, of the change and its rationale.

Each level makes an independent recommendation based on department-defined standards and university policy.

• Joint Appointments: You will be reviewed by your administrative home, with input from both units. Your committee will include representation from each.
• Administrative Roles (below dean/associate dean): Per University Policy 4380, Section 4.2.6B, “Faculty members serving in administrative positions below the level of the dean, excluding associate and assistant deans, are also subject to periodic review, but 1.) the dean, or designee, shall take the place of the unit head in the review process; 2.) the Post-Tenure Review materials shall include administrative accomplishments; and 3.) to the extent possible, the review committee should include at least one (1) administrative faculty.”

NO. As established in Policy 4380, “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 and promotion.” (Section 4.2.4.c).

Here are two approaches departments should use when drafting their standards for Minimum Satisfactory Performance

Option 1: Reference the University Standards

Teaching

To meet minimum satisfactory performance in teaching, tenured faculty should perform the duties described in Section 5.3.1.b of Boise State Policy 4000 – Faculty Code of Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct – and avoid the behaviors described in Section 5.4.1. <insert any department expectations not listed in Policy 4000>

Scholarship

To meet minimum satisfactory performance in scholarship the faculty member should, at the time of the review, <insert minimum college or department standards for research>— and avoid the behaviors described in Policy 4000 Section 5.4.2.

Service

To meet minimum satisfactory performance in service the faculty member should follow Section 5.3.3.c-f of Boise State Policy 4000 – Faculty Code of Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct and avoid the behaviors described in Section 5.4.3. <insert any department expectations not listed in Policy 4000, including any standards for overall contributions to the department or other assigned responsibilities>

Option 2: Translate the University Standards to Department-Specific Expectations

Within the <Department>, this basic standard is to be understood in terms of the following minimal conditions for Satisfactory Performance:

[Here you should appeal to expected elements of the CV and/or annual evaluations, framed in terms of your disciplinary standards. You can keep it quite simple, or you can make it as complex as you like, so long as it flexibly addresses teaching/librarianship, scholarship, service, other assigned responsibilities, and overall contributions to the department. See Policy 4380 Section 4.2.4A for the full requirements.]

You will be evaluated based on your assigned workload over the five-year review period (See Policy 4380 Section 4.2.4A). Per Policy 4380 Section 4.3.1A, “In making its evaluations, the committee must bear in mind that 1.) faculty members have differing responsibilities and make different kinds of contributions to the mission of the department, the College, and the University; 2.) a faculty member’s activities vary over time according to their strengths, interests, and career path; and 3.) innovative work may take time to reach fruition and may sometimes not lead to results.”

A template has been created to support departments, schools, and colleges in developing their guidelines and standards: Periodic Review of Tenured Faculty, Department Template.

Departments must develop and maintain review standards, per Policy 4380 Section 4.2A(c). Faculty who are eligible to vote (as defined by unit bylaws) must approve the standards, and departments must review them every five years. These must be:

• Approved by a majority of faculty who are eligible to vote according to the unit’s bylaws and policies
• Approved by the department chair, dean, and Provost
• Aligned with university policy.

Each department is responsible for defining:

• Standards for satisfactory performance for tenured faculty
• Criteria for the Professorial Performance Award

These standards must be approved by the faculty, department chair, dean, and Provost. Your chair can share your department’s current standards and answer any questions, and the department’s policy should be listed here.

The Professorial Performance Award is not granted for simply meeting assigned responsibilities or maintaining a satisfactory record, nor is it awarded based on seniority alone. It is a merit-based recognition that requires a rigorous review of recent accomplishments.

To be considered, candidates must demonstrate excellence—beyond a typical “exceeds expectations” rating in an annual review—in at least two of the following three areas, based on assigned workload:

• Teaching and mentoring
• Research or creative activity
• Service and leadership

Importantly, the PPA builds on and differs from the department’s current standards for promotion to full professor as a baseline for review (see Periodic Review of Tenured Faculty, Department Template for guidance). PPA performance expectations are more rigorous than annual reviews and distinct from the level of ‘exceeds expectations.’ 

Departments should establish clear benchmarks for sustained excellence—generally comparable to or exceeding standards for promotion to full professor— with excellence evaluated using the department’s current standards (See University Policy 4380 Section 4.2.5A). Because those standards may have evolved over time, a faculty member promoted years ago might find that their current work does not align with today’s expectations for exemplary performance. This is understandable—not all full professors may choose to pursue the award. 

Department standards for the Professorial Performance Award must be developed, approved, and regularly reviewed by a majority of voting-eligible faculty. They must align with departmental promotion criteria, reflect disciplinary standards of excellence, and distinguish between annual evaluation performance and sustained, exemplary achievement. The criteria must be approved by the chair, dean, and Provost, and reviewed at least every five years or when promotion standards change. (See University Policy 4380 Section 4.2.5A(c)). 

A template has been created to support departments, schools, and colleges in developing their guidelines and standards: Periodic Review of Tenured Faculty, Department Template.

Each department defines the criteria for exemplary performance in its own discipline, but all standards must:

• Be distinct from criteria for annual reviews or for merely meeting expectations;
• Require evidence of recent excellence (more than exceeding expectations) in at least two areas of faculty responsibility;
• Align with university policies and reflect the faculty member’s tenure home;
• Be vetted and approved by the department faculty, chair, dean, and Provost;
• Be used as part of a rigorous, multi-level review involving a peer committee, department leader, dean, and the Provost.

Evaluation is based on the department’s approved PPA criteria, which must align with university policies, reflect disciplinary expectations, and be approved by a majority of voting-eligible faculty, the chair, the dean, and the Provost. The award is not automatic, even for faculty with strong records.  (See University Policy 4380 Section 4.2.5A and Sections 4.3.1B, 4.3.2B, 4.3.3B, and 4.3.4B).

You’ll work with your department/unit head and peer committee to create a structured Improvement Plan. It will:

• Identify specific goals for improvement
• Include support or adjustments as needed
• Be reviewed annually over a period of up to three years

If the plan is successfully completed, your review cycle is reset. If the Improvement Plan is not completed successfully, the case is forwarded to the college-level Promotion and Tenure Committee, then to the dean and Provost. If performance remains unsatisfactory after that review, disciplinary action may be initiated. The process includes opportunities for the faculty member to respond at each stage. See Policy 4380 Section 5.

No. A single unsatisfactory review does not affect your tenure. However, continued unsatisfactory performance and failure to meet an approved Improvement Plan could lead to disciplinary action. In such cases, you are entitled to due process and full procedural protections under University Policy 4720.

You may:

• Submit a written response to any recommendation
• Request a meeting with the reviewer (committee, chair, dean, etc.)
• Appeal the outcome through the Faculty Senate Grievance Committee

Your rights to due process and a fair review are protected throughout.

For the Professorial Performance Award, see University Policy 4380 Section 4.3.3B(c).

If the department committee determines (and subsequent recommendations concur) that an applicant doesn’t quite meet the criteria the year they are eligible, then the faculty member can apply again in 2 years. In such a case, the committee is also responsible for indicating to the faculty member, during the PPA review, what they would need to do to meet the criteria in two years. For example, an application might receive a recommendation of Satisfactory Performance/Recommend Against the Award, and the committee can indicate in their review what the candidate would need to do to achieve the award in the future, just as they would do for a pre-tenure faculty member.

• Provides public evidence that the university has structures in place to recognize, assess, and reward continued contributions from tenured faculty
• Ensures Boise State is compliant with state law
• Provides a post-tenure review process that is meaningful and rigorous
• Demonstrates that Boise State values and invests in long-term faculty excellence and accountability
• Reinforces the role of faculty in supporting student success and institutional goals
• Encourages faculty engagement and leadership across their careers

• University Policy 4380 – Periodic Review of Tenured Faculty
• University Policy 4000 – Faculty Code of Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct
• Periodic Review of Tenured Faculty, Department Template
• Contact the Office of the Provost: provost@boisestate.edu