TOPEKA — The Kansas Board of Regents is preparing to vote on faculty tenure policy recommendations that set academic workload expectations and require rigorous post-tenure reviews of professors at the state’s six public universities.
The initiative would establish common points of reference in evaluating the work of hundreds of tenured faculty at the University of Kansas, Kansas State University, Wichita State University, Emporia State University, Fort Hays State University and Pittsburg State University. The policy package would require one-year remediation programs for faculty falling short of expectations. It would set the stage for dismissal of people with substandard evaluations in back-to-back years.
Under the draft plan circulated to Board of Regents members and university personnel, administration leaders on each campus would retain jurisdiction over details of evaluations of tenured faculty and the provisions of self-improvement programs for anyone with recognized deficiencies. The core obligations of state university faculty would continue to revolve around teaching, research and service, but instruction of students would be the biggest factor in assessments.
“We’re looking for sort of an umbrella policy that stills shows accountability, but obviously is flexible enough that the institutions will be able to utilize it,” said Board of Regents member Alysia Johnston, who has more than 35 years of experience in community college education.
She said Wednesday during a Board of Regents meeting in Hays the new approach would answer questions about whether tenured faculty continued to find success at a level commensurate with someone of their academic rank.
The workload policy would link faculty performance evaluations to tenure status. “This seems like a really good potential product,” said Kathy Wolfe Moore, appointed to the Board of Regents last year by Gov. Laura Kelly after serving a dozen years in the Kansas House.
Rusty Monhollon, vice president of academic affairs for the Board of Regents, said overhauling post-tenure and workload systems would make it easier for the public universities to identify on an annual basis the faculty who excelled. It would provide administrators a roadmap for addressing faculty not adhering to high expectations, he said.
Monhollon said campus evaluations of tenured faculty would “become less subjective” through reliance on tangible evidence related to teaching, research and service.
He said policy changes were intended to reinforce the values of faculty tenure, support student academic success and enhance accountability at taxpayer-supported universities. The changes weren’t designed to thwart faculty development or scholarly innovation, he said.
In addition, he said, the framework resulted from collaboration with university administrators and faculty, and drew from established practices found elsewhere in U.S. higher education.
Policy recommendations would direct state universities to produce annual reports on the process of awarding tenure, including data on awards, denials and departures among faculty. It wouldn’t alter current policy limiting tenure-track faculty probationary periods to seven years. Tenure also would continue to be awarded based on meritorious performance rather than longevity of service.
In terms of post-tenure review, each faculty member would operate with work plans adjusted annually to outline expectations. Committees with at least five members would conduct full-scale reviews of each tenured faculty member every five years.
Tenured professors receiving an unsatisfactory evaluation would be required to take part in a one-year improvement plan. A second year with an unsatisfactory rating “may lead to dismissal or reassignment,” the policy proposal said.
Each university would provide an annual report to the Board of Regents on the number of tenured faculty assessed and improvement plans initiated. It would document the number of faculty departures or dismissals.
Under proposed changes to workload policy applicable to tenured professors, each would be assigned a teaching load. Exceptions could be granted to faculty holding extension, clinical or research positions that didn’t include instructional responsibilities. Otherwise, the three large doctoral universities in Kansas would set teaching loads ranging from 40% to 55% of a faculty member’s work schedule. The three regional universities would set teaching loads ranging from 60% to 75%.
Research expectations for tenured professors would be specific to each discipline, with consideration given to involvement in development of grants, publications, graduate supervision and dissemination of scholarship. Work linked to service duties must coincide with “institutional goals,” and could include administrative responsibilities.
Biennial reports prepared by the six universities would document faculty metrics on credit hour production, graduation rates, publications and research funding.
The Board of Regents could take a preliminary vote on post-tenure and workload policies in December. If advanced, the final vote would likely be in January.
KU chancellor Doug Girod said if the Board of Regents implemented post-tenure and workforce reforms it would constitute “one of the most robust processes in the country.”
“Most of what you’re seeing in state legislatures around the country are trying to accomplish where we are today,” Girod said.
Richard Linton, president of K-State, said the university’s faculty senate would provide feedback on the plan.
“From a 50,000-foot viewpoint,” Linton said, “I think it’s headed in a very good direction.”
University tenure at Kansas public universities was placed under a spotlight in 2024 when an attorney at Emporia State University urged the Kansas House to eliminate employment protections afford by tenure. The House didn’t act on his proposal.
