COLLEGE OF EDUCATION (COE)
PROMOTION AND TENURE PROCEDURES
This document articulates the criteria and the procedures for faculty evaluation for tenure and promotion within the College of Education. These provisions are intended to be supplemental to and consistent with Section 6 of the University Faculty Handbook as revised effective August 2011. In any case where an inconsistency emerges, the University Faculty Handbook shall supersede any provisions in the present document and shall govern.
K.1. Tenure Criteria
K.1.1 Criteria for the Evaluation of Teaching.
The award of tenure in the College of Education requires evidence of the faculty member’s sustained commitment to classroom instruction as well as sustained effectiveness as a contributor to the intellectual development of students. The College subscribes to a vision of teaching consistent with the University Faculty Handbook and also exemplified in Ernest Boyer’s (1990) statement on the Scholarship of Teaching. This statement expresses the belief that knowledge acquired through teaching is a co-constructed dynamic endeavor that requires a reciprocal act between teachers and learners. The scholarship of teaching thus increases both students’ and faculty’s capacities for continuous instructional improvement through reflection, critical and creative thinking, and action. Thus teaching is an intellectual commitment on the part of both teachers and learners.
The following criteria for tenure in the category of Teaching emphasize and are based on the College’s Mission Statement and Conceptual Framework. The teaching criteria are met through such indicators and artifacts as evidence of student learning associated with the faculty member’s teaching, course design, and materials, interaction with students outside of formal instructional periods, and other mechanisms of enhancing student learning. Student evaluation data must be a part of the evidence in all cases, but by themselves they are not enough. Students are important judges of a teacher’s fairness, organization, and personal qualities in the classroom, the field, or the office; but the faculty member’s colleagues within and outside of the College are also significant judges of the content of the candidate’s pedagogy. Popular teaching and good teaching are not necessarily the same thing.
K.1.1.1 Teaching Criteria, Indicators and Evidence.
The following table identifies the key criteria, upon which candidates for tenure in the College of Education are to be evaluated for teaching. Candidates are required to meet every criterion but are not required to meet every indicator under a criterion. The expectation is that the cumulative record of the faculty member’s teaching during the probationary period demonstrates a broad and sustained pattern of achievement and growth in teaching involving the criteria listed, and with emphasis on the standards most relevant to the candidate’s areas of specialization.
K.1.2 Criteria for the Evaluation of Scholarship and Professional Development.
Scholarship includes professional activity, scholarly activity, and creative activity that have undergone some type of peer review indicating that it has been accepted as a contribution to the education field. This peer review can take several forms, such as publication or demonstration juries, presentation invitations, or professional service invitations. Professional activity involves shared expertise for the benefit of educators beyond the faculty member’s instructional activities within the College of Education. Scholarly activity involves the scholarship of discovery and integration, usually shared through more traditional publication methods. Creative activity may include such things as development and dissemination of innovative classroom teaching materials, instructional media, etc. Candidates for tenure in the College of Education should demonstrate significant engagement in scholarship activities. An additional category, professional development, refers to growth experienced by the individual as a result of scholarship or professional development activities that did not undergo or pass the peer review process.
K.1.2.1 Scholarship and Professional Development Criteria, Indicators and Evidence.
The following table identifies the key criteria u
pon which candidates for tenure in the College of Education are to be evaluated for scholarship. The expectation is that the cumulative record of the faculty member’s scholarship during the probationary period demonstrates a broad and sustained pattern of achievement and growth in scholarship involving the criteria listed, including scholarship that contributes to the field of education and/or the faculty member’s academic discipline.
|Engages in scholarship related to dissemination of knowledge – Scholarship of discovery or integration||
|Engages in scholarship related to professional service or the use of professional expertise—Scholarship of Engagement or Application||
|Engages in scholarship related to classroom based research –Scholarship of Teaching and Learning||
|Engages in professional development activities||
K.1.3 Criteria for the Evaluation of Service to the University and Profession.
Service to the University, the College, and one’s program is an obligation of every faculty member. This service demonstrates the faculty member’s commitment to the institution’s integrity and governance and to the advancement of our institutional missions. All faculty members are required to make genuine contributions to institutional governance, through committees and otherwise; to participate in activities related to curriculum and program development and to engage in activities that benefit the profession. While quality and effectiveness of service are difficult to assess, the effort must nevertheless be made. At times the service expectations of faculty may be greater than other times, and service can appropriately be given substantial weight in the tenure evaluation process.
K.1.3.1 Service to the University and Profession Criteria, Indicators, and Evidence.
The following table identifies the key criteria, upon which candidates for tenure in the College of Education are to be evaluated in the category of Service. Candidates are required to meet every criterion. The expectation is that the cumulative record of the faculty member’s service demonstrates a commitment to the University, the College, and one’s program during the probationary period involving the criteria listed. Both the quantity and quality of one’s participation and leadership in service will be considered.
K.2. Promotion and Tenure Committee
The committee will consist of 5 members. There will be three members from the College of Education and two members external to the College, all five of whom must be tenured. All members will be elected by the faculty of the College of Education. At least one member of the committee shall hold the rank of full professor and all other members the rank of associate professor or higher. The Associate Dean for Academic Programs, Assessment and Accreditation (ADAPAA) is not eligible to serve on the Promotion and Tenure Committee. Members will serve staggered 3-year terms. In 2011-2012, there shall be one member from the College of Education elected for a 1-year term, one for a 2-year term, and one for a 3-year term. In 2011-2012 one of the external members shall be elected for a 2-year term, and the other external member for a 3-year term.
At the beginning of the spring term, the Chair of the COE Faculty Council solicits nominations for members for the Promotion and Tenure Committee from the faculty of the College of Education. Nominees will include internal and external members. Nominated faculty must accept nomination before their names are placed on the ballot. Nominations for the Promotion and Tenure Committee will be presented at the regularly scheduled March meeting of the College of Education faculty. The ballot shall be circulated according to the election calendar of the University, or at least one week before the April meeting when elections will be conducted. If there are more nominees than slots to fill on the committee, the election will be conducted on a confidential electronic ballot. For the 2011-2012 election, nominations shall be made separately for the 1-year, 2-year and 3-year terms. The election for the 3-year terms (both internal and external) will be conducted first, then for the 2-year terms (both internal and external), and then for the 1-year term (internal only). A candidate may be nominated for each of the slots and his or her name removed for subsequent elections if selected.
K.2.3 Duties of the Committee
The Committee shall annually elect from among its College of Education members a chair to serve a one-year term.
K.2.3.2 Review Decisions.
The committee shall review the promotion and tenure files of the faculty members who have met the eligibility criteria and have submitted their files for review. The review shall be conducted according to the procedures, criteria, standards and policies for promotion and tenure of the College and the University. The committee’s recommendation for approval of a candidate for promotion or tenure requires a majority vote of the committee members. Candidates will not be ranked. (See section 7.5 below regarding expectations for participants in the process.)
K.2.3.3 Report to Dean.
Upon completion of the review, the Committee shall provide a written recommendation to the College of Education Dean for each candidate reviewed. A written rationale will accompany each recommendation, explaining the extent to which the College of Education promotion and/or tenure criteria have been met by each candidate based on the contents of the candidate’s promotion or tenure file. In all other respects, the deliberations of the Committee shall be held in strictest confidence. (See also section 5.6 below regarding review by the Promotion and Tenure Committee).
K.2.3.4 Follow-up Meeting.
Following his or her review of the candidates, the Dean, at his or her discretion, may call a meeting of the Promotion and Tenure Committee to discuss the reviews of the Dean and of the committee.
K.3. Eligibility for Tenure
The College of Education shall follow the University’s eligibility requirements as specified in section 7 of the Faculty Handbook. Candidates for tenure in the College of Education must possess a doctorate degree, special competence, or a terminal degree appropriate to the teaching field.
K.4. Probationary Period and Pre-tenure Review
K.4.1 Probationary Period.
The probationary period is six years of full-time teaching experience at the University unless a faculty member has chosen to extend that period in accordance with section 4.2 below and other applicable University policies.
For faculty without a traditional probationary period who are transitioning from renewable contracts, 2011-2015, the timelines in the President’s letter of August 20, 2010 and the Provost’s memo entitled “Stafford Campus Faculty Contract Transition Process” shall be adhered to.
K.4.2 Extension of the Probationary Period.
A faculty member may request an extension in the probationary period under the following circumstances that would seriously impair the faculty member’s capacity to build the record of accomplishment he/she judges appropriate for tenure review:
- Pregnancy, adoption or foster child placement;
- Significant responsibilities with respect to elder or dependent care obligations, disability,serious illness or circumstances beyond the control of the faculty member;
- Military service or obligations; or
- Legal concerns, including but not limited to the processing of divorce, custody deliberations or disputes, or civil suits.
This list of circumstances is not intended to be exhaustive, but instead is intended to be illustrative in nature.
K.4.2.1 Leave of Absence.
An unpaid leave of absence will not alter the probationary period unless a request for extension is approved.
K.4.2.2 Request and Approval Process.
The request will be submitted in writing, prior to or during the semester in question, to the ADAPAA for review and recommendation to the Dean. The Dean will review the request and, if approved, forward the recommendation to the Provost for review/approval. If a request for extension of the probationary period is approved, the faculty member will enter into a written agreement which sets out the specific time period of the extension and which establishes the year of the faculty member’s tenure review.
K.4.2.3 Effect on Review for Tenure.
When they become eligible to apply for tenure, faculty members whose probationary period is extended shall be considered for tenure at the next regularly scheduled evaluation period and shall be evaluated for tenure and promotion in accordance with the standard criteria (not higher expectations).
During the probationary period, new faculty will have a tenured faculty member selected as a mentor who serves to provide positive career support and guidance about faculty matters. In the role of mentor, one does not serve as a formal evaluator of the new faculty member. However, mentors may serve on a Peer Review Team.
K.4.3.1 Selection of Mentors
Upon the appointment of a new full-time faculty member, the Associate Dean of Academic Programs, Assessment and Accreditation (ADAPAA), shall select a tenured faculty member to serve for one year as the Orientation Mentor for the new faculty. Selected Orientation Mentors will be notified in the spring of the year preceding the beginning of their mentorship. A selected mentor must accept or decline the appointment within two weeks of being selected. The decision to decline must be in writing with an explanation. The Orientation Mentor will serve as a resource for the new faculty member’s first contract year as he/she becomes acclimated to the College and University, and the Mentor will provide assistance to that new faculty member in understanding and performing the new faculty member’s teaching and advising responsibilities as listed in subsection 4.3.3 below.
Before the end of the first contract year, the new faculty member will select his or her Tenure-Track Mentor from among the tenured faculty in the College, who will serve as the new faculty member’s mentor for the next two years until the new faculty member completes preparation of his or her pre-tenure review portfolio. A selected mentor must accept or decline the appointment within two weeks of being selected. The decision to decline must be in writing with an explanation. The Orientation Mentor may serve as the Tenure-Track Mentor if both the mentor and the new faculty member agree. Each selected Tenure-Track Mentor should be able to perform all the responsibilities listed in subsection 4.3.3 below.
The Associate Dean of Academic Programs, Assessment and Accreditation (ADAPAA) will ordinarily not serve as a mentor , as it is important for effective mentorship that the mentor not be responsible for annual evaluation of the faculty member. No faculty member should be required to mentor more than one individual at a time. Selection as a mentor stands as strong recognition of a tenured faculty member’s record, as well as being a service responsibility.
K.4.3.2 Mentor Criteria
- The mentor must be tenured
- The Orientation Mentor must commit to meeting with the new faculty member once per month during the his/her first academic year
- The Tenure-Track Mentor must commit to serving for the second and third years of the new faculty member’s employment (i.e. until submission of his/her pre-tenure review portfolio) and to meeting with the new faculty member at least two times per semester during those two academic years.
K.4.3.3 Mentor Responsibilities These include, but are not limited to, the following:
- Serving as a resource to the new faculty member as he/she becomes acclimated to the College and University
- Assisting with advising
- Explaining the academic policies of the college and the requirements of the faculty member’s program(s)
- Assisting in preparation of course syllabi, understanding of teaching responsibilities, and orientation to the Faculty Handbook
- Aiding the new faculty member in fostering relationships and networking opportunities within the College and University-wide
- Providing guidance on preparing effective documentation in the annual performance review process
- Advising the new faculty member regarding documents to keep and track for the promotion and tenure file
- Assisting the new faculty member in creating his/her pre-tenure review file and giving feedback about the file, in writing if requested, prior to submission
K.4.4 Pre-tenure Review.
During a candidate’s third year of the probationary period, the candidate will submit a pre-tenure review file (excluding letters of recommendation) to a Pre-tenure Review Committee. This committee serves to provide feedback to the candidate on the file contents and presentation with regard to the College’s criteria for tenure, and to advise the candidate about whether, in the judgment of the committee, the candidate is on track to be successfully reviewed for tenure at the end of the probationary period.
K.4.4.1 Pre-tenure Review Committees.
Each committee shall consist of the candidate’s mentor and two additional members selected by the ADAPPA.
K.4.4.2 Pre-tenure Review Schedule.
Pre-tenure review credentials files will be submitted to the committee by October 1 of the candidate’s third year of the probationary period, and the committee will provide its feedback to the candidate by November 1 of the same year.
Transitioning faculty, 2011 to 2015, may submit a pre-tenure review file, or a file previously submitted for promotion, to a Pre-tenure Review Committee to receive feedback about whether, in the judgment of the committee, the candidate’s file is adequate to be submitted to the Promotion and Tenure Committee, and to provide advice about how to update it. The committee shall consist of one senior faculty member appointed by the Dean in consultation with the candidate’s ADAPPA, and two members selected by the ADAPPA from a list provided by the candidate. Pre-tenure review credentials files of transitioning faculty may be submitted to the committee at any time during the probationary period, upon approval of the dean. This must be done no later than March 15 of the year preceding the final year of probation (see Provost’s memo entitled “Stafford Campus Faculty Contract Transition Process”).
K.5. Steps in the Tenure Review Process
The College of Education will adhere to the calendar determined by the Provost according to section 6.9 of the University Faculty Handbook. The dates below are given to provide a general timeline.
K.5.1 Request for Review.
By May 1 of the spring semester preceding the final year of the probationary period, it is the responsibility of the individual faculty member desiring tenure to request in writing by his or her ADAPPA that he or she be considered for tenure. (In the case of a ADAPPA seeking tenure as a faculty member, the Dean, in consultation with the ADAPPA involved, shall appoint someone to act in the role of chair.) Should a faculty member not request tenure as specified, he or she will be notified in writing that the seventh year of service will be the terminal year of employment at the University unless the individual is offered and elects to accept a renewable term contract without tenure.
K.5.2 Letters of Recommendation.
By June 1 candidates for tenure shall submit to their ADAPPA a list from which to solicit letters of recommendation. This list shall include, but not be limited to, all tenured faculty in the college, and also three to five individuals who are faculty or professionals outside the College of Education. It is the ADAPPA’s responsibility to solicit a written evaluation and recommendation for or against tenure or a written statement of abstention from each tenured member of the candidate’s college. In addition, the ADAPPA will solicit letters from other individuals on the candidate’s list, including faculty or professionals outside the College of Education. All of the letters solicited shall be from individuals knowledgeable about the candidate’s teaching, scholarship, professional development, and/or service. The ADAPPA’s request for letters of recommendation shall include the College of Education criteria for tenure. All persons asked to write letters of recommendation shall be informed that these documents will be accessible to the faculty member. The ADAPPA shall promptly provide the candidate with a list of those from whom letters have been requested. The deadline for receipt of letters is August 15. The ADAPPA shall be responsible for transmitting these recommendations to the candidate for inclusion in the candidate’s tenure credentials file. (See section 5.4 below.)
K.5.3 ADAPPA’s Recommendation.
By August 26, the ADAPPA (or the appointee of the Dean, in the case the ADAPPA is seeking promotion) shall review his or her written recommendation regarding tenure and the reasons for the recommendation with the faculty member. The faculty member may submit a letter of exception to the Dean by August 31. The ADAPPA shall submit the candidate’s request for tenure, the ADAPPA’s recommendation and reasons for the recommendation, and all letters of recommendation to the candidate by August 31 for inclusion in the candidate’s tenure credentials file.
K.5.4. Tenure Credentials File.
By August 31, each candidate for tenure shall prepare a tenure credentials file and submit it to the Dean’s office. It shall be the responsibility of the faculty member to include all pertinent data he or she wishes to have included in the file, in addition to the required contents listed in section 6 below. For the remainder of the decision-making process, this file shall constitute the exclusive official written record of the procedure. The file shall be accessible only to the faculty member involved, the P&T Committee, the Dean, the Provost, the President, and the Board of Visitors. In case an appeal is submitted by the candidate, the associated appeals committee shall also have access to the candidate’s tenure credentials file.
K.5.5 Candidate’s Access to File.
From August 31 until the candidate’s tenure credentials file is made available to the P&T Committee on September 7, the candidate has the right to review all materials in the file and to write a letter of exception or explication for inclusion in the file. The candidate may not during this time remove materials from the file or modify them in any way. The file shall not be accessible to the candidate from the time that it is made available to the P&T Committee until the tenure process and all appeals are complete. No materials received after the file is transmitted to the P&T Committee will be included in the file or used in the tenure consideration, to insure that the same documentary record forms the basis for tenure recommendations at each level of review. After the appeals are exhausted, any materials supplied by the Dean, the letters of recommendation, and any letters of exception from the candidate’s tenure credentials file shall be inserted in the faculty member’s University personnel file (see University Faculty Handbook, §3.12.4); materials submitted by the candidate shall be returned to him or her.
K.5.6 Review by Promotion and Tenure Committee.
On September 7 or the following Monday if September 7 falls on the weekend, the Dean shall transmit the faculty member’s tenure credentials file to the P&T Committee. The P&T Committee shall carefully review each tenure credentials file according to its duties listed in section 1.3, the criteria for tenure listed in section 1 above and the expectations for participants in the process listed in section 7 below. The recommendations and justifications of the committee shall be included in the appropriate credentials files and submitted to the Dean by January 5. Within one week (five working days), the Dean shall inform each candidate for tenure of the P&T Committee’s recommendation, of the justifications for the recommendation pertaining to him or her, and of the faculty member’s right to appeal.
K.5.7 Appeal of Committee Decision.
No later than January 17, faculty members requesting tenure may appeal the recommendations of the P&T Committee by submitting a request for reconsideration and justification for such reconsideration on the basis of procedural or substantive grounds to the Dean. In each instance when an appeal is requested, the dean shall, within one working week, establish a Tenure Appeal Advisory Committee (TAAC), which shall be composed of one member of the COE Faculty Affairs Committee selected by the committee, one member appointed by the dean, one member appointed by the Provost, and one member appointed by the appellant. No person on the TAAC should be a member of the Promotion and Tenure Committee that rendered the tenure recommendation being appealed. No person on the TAAC, other than the person selected by the appellant, should be a faculty member who has written a letter of recommendation for the candidate’s tenure file. All members of the TAAC shall be tenured. If there is no member of the COE Faculty Affairs Committee eligible to serve on the TAAC, then the COE Faculty Affairs Committee appoints a replacement member of the TAAC from among the eligible members of the COE faculty. In the event of multiple appeals, the three members appointed respectively by the Faculty Affairs Committee, the dean, and the Provost shall serve on each appeal committee; the member selected by the appellant shall serve only on the committee reviewing the appeal of his or her selector. The TAAC, with access to all information about the candidate and the tenure criteria available to the original P&T Committee as well as the original Committee’s recommendation and the candidate’s letter of appeal, shall reconsider the recommendations of the original committee. The TAAC shall make its recommendation in writing to the dean within four working weeks. The dean shall inform the appellant of the TAAC’s recommendation within two working days.
K.5.8 Review by the Dean
The Dean shall review all information and recommendations contained in each candidate’s tenure credentials file, shall formulate and state in writing his or her recommendations with reasons, and shall forward these and the tenure credentials files to the Provost by March 10. A copy of the Dean’s written recommendations will be sent to the faculty member, his or her ADAPPA, and the Promotion and Tenure Committee.
K.5.8.1 Factors in Consideration.
When considering tenure decisions, the dean must consider each candidate’s credentials according to criteria expressed in the University Faculty Handbook and the College of Education Bylaws. The dean must also consider carefully the rank and tenure profiles of the college, projected enrollment patterns, staffing needs, current and projected mission of each college, the specific academic competence of the faculty member, and the preservation of opportunities for the infusion of new talent.
K.5.8.2 Appeal of Dean’s Decision.
When the Dean recommends that tenure be withheld, the recommendation letter from the Dean shall inform the faculty member of his or her right to appeal the Dean’s recommendation, in writing, within 7 days to the Provost. (see §7.12.2.)
K.5.9 Final Steps in the Tenure Review Process. Procedures for review by the Provost, for appealing the Provost’s decision, and for review by the President and Board of Visitors are spelled out in the University Faculty Handbook (see § 7.12.3 – 7.12.4).
K.6. Contents and Appearance of Promotion or Tenure Credentials File
The tenure credentials file will cover the candidate’s activities during the probationary period and the promotion credentials file will cover the candidate’s activities since the previous promotion.
For faculty without a traditional probationary period who were reviewed for a promotion prior to the tenure application, the tenure credentials file may consist of the candidate’s previous promotion credentials file updated to the date of the submission of the tenure credentials file.
K.6.1 Table of Contents.
The credentials file shall include a table of contents listing the following major sections of the file:
- Official Communications in the Tenure Process
- Faculty Data Sheet and Appointment/Promotion Letters
- Faculty Annual Activity Reports
- Annual Performance Reviews
- Curriculum Vitae
- Letters of Recommendation
- Rationale Statement
- Evidence in Support of Teaching Criteria
- Evidence in Support of Scholarship and Professional Development Criteria
- Evidence in Support of Service Criteria
K.6.2 Official Communications in the Tenure or Promotion Process.
The file shall include all communications and documents developed as part of the process arranged in reverse chronological order. The candidate’s letter to the Dean requesting to be reviewed for tenure (see section 5.1 above) should be no longer than one paragraph, describing the eligibility criteria that have been met (e.g., the completion of degree requirements). The Dean’s response to this letter of request shall also be included.
For transitioning faculty, following the Dean’s review conducted in 2010, the Dean shall provide a recommendation in writing to each transitioning faculty member stating the reasons for the recommendation, with a copy to the ADAPPA. A copy of this recommendation shall be included in this section of the candidate’s tenure credentials file.
K.6.3 Faculty Data Sheet and Appointment/Promotion Letters.
The faculty data sheet provides information contained in the candidate’s state personnel file (see University Faculty Handbook, §3.12.3) concerning the individual’s degrees and dates received, terms of service, promotion record, and other personnel data as deemed appropriate. This faculty data sheet must be reviewed and countersigned by the candidate before it is inserted in the candidate’s tenure credentials file. The faculty data sheet should be accompanied by the candidate’s appointment letters during the probationary period and by the promotion letters, if any, received by the candidate; these letters should be arranged in reverse chronological order.
K.6.4 Faculty Annual Activity Reports (FAARs)
Copies of these reports for each of the preceding years of the probationary period or the equivalent amount, (at least 5 years) should be included in reverse chronological order. Be sure these are signed.
K.6.5 Annual Performance Reviews (APRs)
Include these for each of the preceding years of the probationary period, or the equivalent amount, (at least 5 years) in reverse chronological order. Be sure these are signed. If any are missing or late, make sure that the ADAPPA/Dean addresses this in his or her letter.
K.6.6 Curriculum Vita
The candidate’s curriculum vita (CV) provides a detailed account of his or her career(s) and accomplishments. In order to provide uniformity, the CV should be organized in the following order, with individual items under each category presented with the most recent first:
- Professional Experience listed by year(s), academic rank, and institution
- Education listed by year(s), degree, field, granting institution; include dissertation title
- Honors, Grants, and Awards
- Publications with full bibliographic information and with reviews, editions, or collaborative work so indicated
- Publications in Progress
- Scholarly and Professional Presentations with title of presentation, identification of conference or audience, place, date
- Professional Memberships with offices held and dates
- Subjects Taught
- Committee Service
- Community Service
- (Additional categories may be added here)
- References (usually “Available on request”).
K.6.7 Letters of Recommendation
Section 5.2 provides requirements for the sources of the letters. The letters should come from diverse sources who can address different areas covered by the criteria for tenure. The letters should clearly substantiate specific claims in the candidate’s rationale (below). The ADAPPA’s recommendation shall be included in this section (see section 5.3).
K.6.8 Rationale Statement
The candidate should explain as clearly, objectively and concisely as possible (in no more than ten pages) how he or she meets all the general and specific criteria for promotion or tenure based on activities during the period under review. In many instances,the explanation could be as short as a sentence. Discussion of performance in the areas of teaching, scholarship and professional development, and service to the University and profession will normally be fairly lengthy and should include references to specific documents in evidence of the criteria.
K.6.9 Evidence in Support of Teaching Criteria
Include a summary of student course evaluations during the probationary period. The summary should be in the form of a numeric table with descriptive explanation as needed. If you include student comments, provide a clear interpretation of them. Do not include all the individual pages. The inclusion of selected favorable student comments is unpersuasive. Because teaching is very difficult to evaluate, make a concerted effort to include other useful sources of information about quality of teaching. Include representative syllabi, peer observation reports (if any), teaching awards, representative curriculum development documents, evidence of student learning, and any involvement in programs focused on improving your teaching that are not included in the Scholarship and Professional Development category. Select examples which, with explanatory annotations if necessary, will help the committee understand what you are trying to accomplish in the classroom and how you go about it. Point out evidence related to meeting professional standards as appropriate. Demonstrate reflection and improvement of teaching over time. Provide commentary on student advising load and effectiveness
K.6.10 Evidence in Support of Scholarship and Professional Development
Include material representative of your achievements during the probationary period, with explanatory annotations as needed. It is sufficient to include photocopies of the first page of an article or a table of contents from a book rather than an offprint or photocopy of the full text. Describe electronic or digital products clearly, explaining what they do and how you designed them. Do not include books, videotapes, films, or computer programs. Brief contextualizing comments may accompany representative materials and documents.
K.6.11 Evidence in Support of Service to the University and Profession
Include material representative of your achievements during the probationary period, with explanatory annotations as needed. Brief contextualizing comments may accompany representative materials and documents.
K.6.12 Physical Appearance of the File
The amount of material should fit within a 3-ring binder no more than two inches thick.Avoid using plastic sleeves and folders with pockets. Number the pages in an organized fashion.Use section dividers. The committee prefers Times New Roman, font 12, withone-inch margins.
K.7. Expectations for Participants in the Promotion and Tenure Process
K.7.1 Collegeal Colleagues
Collegeal colleagues should explain the candidate’s role in the college. In addition, the collegeal colleagues’ letters should help to explain the significance of the candidate’s professional activity. Recommendations should be based on specific information.
The ADAPPA’s letter should explain the candidate’s role in the college. The ADAPPA should take extra care to explain the college’s style of operation, so that the candidate’s important roles can be more adequately understood. The ADAPPA’s letter should also explain the significance and quality of the candidate’s professional activity. The ADAPPA’s letter should then give an honest summative evaluation of the candidate’s work in all three areas. The committee asks for the ADAPPA’s best, most careful judgment of the candidate’s work over an extended time. That judgment should be based on specific information reported in the letter and (usually) reflected in the series of APRs that the file contains. Finally, the ADAPPA shall have verified the accuracy of all substantive claims in the candidate’s curriculum vita.
K.7.3 Institutional Colleagues
Institutional colleagues should explain the specific contexts in which they have worked with the candidate and evaluate her/his performance in those areas. Recommendations should be based on specific information that is reported in the letter.
K.7.4 Colleagues in the Discipline
These references address the context in which the candidate’s work has become known and the standing of the candidate’s work within the discipline or the profession.
K.7.5 Promotion and Tenure Committee
The committee’s duty is to evaluate each candidate individually and objectively based on the contents of the candidate’s tenure or promotion credentials file (see additional duties in section 2.3 above). The evaluation of file contents should take into consideration both the quality and the quantity of a candidate’s activities and achievements in each category, taking care to recognize significant variables in the candidate’s duties. In no case is the Committee to grant any credence to anonymous or informal claims about the candidate’s performance. The following guidelines are to be followed in evaluating each section of the file:
K.7.5.1 Official Communications in the Tenure Process.
These documents verify that the candidate is eligible to seek promotion or tenure. They must be signed. If the documents do not support the candidate’s eligibility, there should be no further evaluation of the credentials file.
K.7.5.2 Faculty Data Sheet and Appointment/Promotion Letters.
These documents verify the candidate’s current rank as relevant to the promotion process. In the tenure review process, a candidate’s appointment to or prior promotion to Associate Professor, along with any supporting evidence cited in the promotion letter, may be considered as positive factors in the recommendation to approve tenure. A candidate’s prior promotion to Professor, along with the supporting evidence cited in the promotion letter, shall be considered as positive factors in the recommendation to approve tenure.
K.7.5.3 Faculty Annual Activity Reports and Annual Performance Reviews.
These documents summarize the activities the candidate was evaluated on during the period under review. Criteria for evaluation should be aligned with the criteria for promotion and tenure. For any years represented by these documents in which the criteria for evaluation are not aligned with the criteria for promotion and tenure, the Committee shall evaluate them based on the categories given in the evaluation forms. In other words, the Committee shall not attempt to re-calculate the candidate’s prior evaluations based on changes in the categories since the time the FAARs and APRs were submitted. The candidate’s overall evaluation ratings on the APRs may be considered in the review for promotion or tenure, but shall not carry more weight than evidence in any other section of the credentials file. The weighting of categories on FAARs and APRs should also be a factor in their evaluation, especially as they may represent assigned duties and responsibilities of the candidate.
K.7.5.4 Curriculum Vita.
The curriculum vita (CV) is a listing of professional activities over the candidate’s career(s). Activities during the period under review will be supported by evidence in the file. The CV also gives evidence of the candidate’s overall productivity over time; the Committee is to evaluate such productivity according to expectations stated in the criteria for promotion and tenure.
K.7.5.5 Letters of Recommendation.
The letters of recommendation should be considered as evidence in evaluating the candidate’s recognition in his or her field. Because these are letters of recommendation available to the candidate, and not confidential evaluations of the candidate, they must be evaluated by the Committee in that context.
K.7.5.6 Rationale Statement.
The rationale statement is the candidate’s opportunity to explain how he or she has met the criteria for tenure or promotion during the period under review. The candidate is not expected to mention every detail of his or her activity during this period in the Rationale; such detail is available to the Committee in the candidate’s FAARs and CV. Therefore the committee should not evaluate the Rationale in terms of comprehensiveness. However, the committee may consider factors relating to the accuracy of information in the Rationale Statement.
K.7.5.7 Evidence in Support of Teaching Criteria.
Candidates are expected to meet all criteria in the category of Teaching. The variety of courses taught, the number of preparations each semester, and the number of new and revised courses may be considered in evaluation of teaching, as these impact quality. Teaching of individual courses, such as field placement supervision, research, and individual study, should be included.
K.7.5.8 Evidence in Support of Scholarship and Professional Development Criteria.
Candidates are expected to demonstrate significant engagement in scholarship. The candidate’s rationale should provide a context for the evidence included and reference supporting materials.
K.7.5.9 Evidence in Support of Service Criteria.
Much of a faculty member’s institutional service is related to the needs of the different colleges or colleges in which he or she works, and may vary greatly over time as reflected in the FAARs and APRs. The candidate’s rationale statement should provide a context for any unusual demands.
The Dean should verify that materials are submitted on time and, on the specified date, close the file. The dean should make files available to the committee promptly in a way that facilitates the committee’s work and protects the confidentiality of the files. The Dean should brief the committee clearly on relevant institutional constraints before it begins deliberating and assist both the committee and the candidates in protecting the confidentiality of the process. After the committee forwards its recommendations, the Dean may meet with them to clarify the recommendations. In reaching her/his own recommendations, the Dean should consider first whether or not the candidate’s record of achievement as represented in the file satisfies the relevant criteria. The dean may also consider two other factors: institutional constraints on promotion or tenure; and additional information about the candidate’s performance which s/he has learned through formal processes and which is clearly represented in the candidate’s personnel folder. In no case is the dean to grant any credence to anonymous or informal claims about the candidate’s performance.
The Provost shall review the recommendation letter from the Promotion and Tenure committee along with the recommendation letter from the dean, and may also consider institutional constraints that may bear on promotion or tenure decisions. As necessary during this stage of the process, the Provost may examine the candidate’s record of achievement as represented in the file when formulating his or her recommendation that will be submitted to the President.
K.8.1 General Policy and Academic Ranks
The general promotion policy and academic ranks in the College of Education are the same as outlined in section 6.1 of the University Faculty Handbook. The College of Education also adheres to the University’s policy on rank structure in section 6.3.4 of the Faculty Handbook. Procedures for compiling and evaluating the promotion credentials files are described in sections 6 and 7 above.
The minimum requirements for promotion in the College of Education are the same as outlined in section 6.2 of the University Faculty handbook.
K.8.3 Individual Criteria for Promotion
Faculty performance is evaluated in three areas of endeavor: teaching, scholarship and professional development, and service to the University and profession.
K.8.3.1 Individual Criteria for Promotion to the Rank of Senior Lecturer. Faculty in the ranks of renewable term contracts are expected to devote most attention to the category of teaching, but not to the exclusion of scholarship and service.
The candidate must demonstrate a pattern of effective teaching during the evaluation period, as indicated by evidence from multiple sources, including (but not limited to): student feedback, colleagues’ testimonials, quality of syllabi, assignments, and tests. Candidates also fulfill assigned duties in academic advising. Similarly, the University recognizes the value of contributions to the curriculum, course improvement based on reflection on content and method, and development of new courses and/or programs.
K.220.127.116.11 Scholarship and Professional Development.
The candidate must demonstrate that he or she has engaged in professional activity that goes beyond the expected reading one must do and the conferences and workshops one must attend to maintain currency in one’s profession or discipline.
K.18.104.22.168 University and Professional Service.
The candidate must demonstrate continuing and active participation on college, college and university committees, beyond attendance at meetings. Participation in curriculum and program development, as well as participation in service to the Profession outside the University is expected.
K.8.3.2 Individual Criteria for Promotion to the Rank of Associate Professor.
The candidate must demonstrate activities meeting the same criteria as for tenure (see section 1 above). Tenure is not automatically granted upon promotion to Associate Professor.
K.8.3.2 Individual Criteria for Promotion to the Rank of Professor.
The candidate must demonstrate continued activities demonstrating the criteria for tenure throughout the period since the promotion to Associate Professor, as well as demonstrating leadership in each category below.
The candidate must demonstrate a pattern of effective teaching during the evaluation period, as indicated by evidence from multiple sources, including (but not limited to): student feedback, colleagues’ recommendations, and quality of syllabi, assignments, and tests. Similarly, the University recognizes the value of contributions to the curriculum, course improvement based on reflection on content and method, and development of new courses and/or programs. The rank of Professor carries with it a recognition that the candidate has made significant value added contributions to teaching and student success in his or her field.
K.22.214.171.124 Scholarship and Professional Development.
The candidate must demonstrate that he or she has engaged in professional activity that goes beyond the expected reading one must do and the conferences and workshops one must attend to maintain currency in one’s profession or discipline. The rank of Professor carries with it a recognition that the candidate is highly regarded in his or her field and has maintained a continuing record of scholarship and professional development activities. Evidence supporting such recognition should appear in external letters of recommendation and from sources such as frequent and regular conference paper presentations and program participation; holding office in professional organizations; editing a journal, publishing book reviews, journal articles (especially refereed), books, or other printed works; or winning a grant.
K.126.96.36.199 University and Professional Service.
The candidate must demonstrate continuing and active participation on college, college and university committees, beyond attendance at meetings. Candidates also fulfill assigned duties in academic advising. Participation in curriculum and program development, as well as participation in service to the Profession outside the University is expected. The rank of Professor carries with it a recognition that the candidate has taken a leadership role in service during the period since the previous promotion.
K.8.4 Promotion Procedures.
The College of Education adheres to the promotion procedures stated in Appendix I, section 2 (I.2) of the University Faculty Handbook, and to the calendar as posted by the Provost’s office.