- You are here:
- GT Home
How the PPR Process Works
All tenured academic faculty, including administrators, undergo a Periodic Peer Review (PPR) every five years. This review assesses effectiveness in teaching, research, service, and professional activities. It is conducted by a committee of faculty peers.
Process and Package Contents for Periodic Peer Review
See Section 3.3.10 of the Faculty Handbook for further details.
- The Periodic Peer Review Committee must be selected by the school faculty.
The school level PPR committee is comprised of tenured, non-administrative, academic faculty. The committee should consist of at least three members. The school faculty specifies the composition of the committee.
- Packages including the following items are prepared by the candidate and submitted to the school chair :
- Approved Individualized Evaluation Criteria (if applicable) - This plan should be between the school chair and the faculty member. Default criteria are the same criteria used for promotion and tenure. Alternative criteria may be applied depending on a faculty member’s shifting roles in the institute. When the default criteria are not used, this section should include any written communications between the School Chair and the faculty member describing the alternative review criteria.
- Periodic Peer Review Statement of Completeness - It is the candidate’s responsibility to prepare and review his/her package after it is assembled and sign a statement to that it is accurate and complete.
- Faculty Statement of Accomplishments and Goals - This statement should focus on the candidate’s most noteworthy accomplishments for the years under consideration, as well as, a multi year plan for the next five years of professional growth and activity in teaching, service, and research.; five page maximum.
- Current Vita - In standard institute format used for promotion and tenure.
- Course/Instructor Opinion Survey (CIOS) Results – Teaching effectiveness scores for the last 5 years should be included in a table summary format. This summary format is the same format as for P&T. Other information that is relevant to evaluate teaching effectiveness may be included as well.
- School Chair Letter and Performance Summary (provided by the school chair)
The school chair will write a letter to the school PPR committee summarizing the performance evaluations of the past five years and assessing the reviewee’s goals and plans for the next five years based upon the agreed criteria. The school chair does not provide a recommendation of a 3 year or 5 year result. This letter is provided to the school PPR committee.
- Institute PPR Cover Sheet (provided by school RPT coordinator)
- School Level PPR Committee Letter (provided by committee chair)
A committee of tenured, academic faculty of the school in which the faculty member has primary appointment will prepare a letter addressed to the reviewee, to include performance commendation, critique of substandard performance, recommendations for corrective action, an overall evaluation score (5 or 3 years), and a record of the committee vote. All members of the PPR committee will sign the coversheet and the letter. This letter will be added to the PPR package and forwarded to the dean.
- Office of the Dean
The letter of the school level review committee, along with all supporting documentation including the school chair's assessment of reviewee's goals, will be transmitted to the dean. The dean will then transmit a copy of the package along with the review results to the reviewee and the Office of Faculty Affairs.
Criteria for Periodic Peer Review
The default criteria for PPR are those used for the schools P&T process. Alternative criteria may be applied, but an understanding, confirmed in writing, must be reached between the school chair and the faculty member before the evaluation begins.
Eligibility for Periodic Peer Review
Tenured faculty, reviewed every five years.
Decisions for PPR
Review outcomes will include a decision that the next review will occur after either 5 or 3 years. Reviewees identified by the review committee as having deficiencies will be recommended for a 3-year review. In this case, the committee must clearly state the basis for that decision. A 5-year decision indicates no deficiencies; the faculty member’s next review will be in 5 years. Faculty members receiving a 3-year result are required to meet with the school chair and dean to create a development plan.