TENURE AND PROMOTION OF INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY REVIEW OF PROCESS AND CRITERIA

1
TENURE AND PROMOTION OF INSTRUCTIONAL
FACULTYREVIEW OF PROCESS AND CRITERIA

• November 5, 2009

2
Advisory Committee on Tenure, Promotion, and
Third-year Review

• 2009-10 Committee Members
• Virginia Bartel, Professor, Elementary Early
• Childhood Education
• Isaure DeBuron, Associate Professor, Biology
• Susan Farrell, Professor, English
• Lynne Ford, Professor, Political Science
• M. Luci Moreira, Associate Professor, Hispanic
  Studies
• Continuing from 2008-09

3
2009-2010 Alternate Members

• Deborah Boyle, Associate Professor, Philosophy
• Bill Danaher, Professor, Sociology/Anthropology
• Marion Doig, Professor, Chemistry
• Chris Lamb, Professor, Communication
• Robert Neville, Asst. Dean, Library

4
Faculty Administration Manual

• CofC HomepageFaculty Staff Information link
• Faculty Staff Information Pagego to
  Faculty-Administration Manual
• (under Faculty Support heading)
• See Part VI, sections A-D, of the Manual
• Some Departments have additional criteria.

5
Review Process

• Review by Departmental Panel
• Review by Dean of School
• Review by the Faculty Advisory Committee
  (third-year cases will be reviewed only when
  requested)
• Review by Provost
• Review by the President

6
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

• All evaluations will involve a rigorous review of
  the quality of the candidates work.
• The review does not consist of demonstrating that
  some minimum threshold has been met.
• Work in the three competency areas Teaching
  Effectiveness, Research and Professional
  Development, Service must all be of sufficient
  quality.

7
Third-Year Review

• Substantiates whether satisfactory progress
  toward tenure has been made
• Should show evidence of effective teaching, a
  continuing research program, and active
  participation in service
• Points out any weakness which, if not corrected,
  might lead to negative tenure decision.

8
TENURE AND PROMOTION TO ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR

• Tenure Review is normally during the sixth year
  at the College
• Only in exceptional cases may a faculty member
  petition for early tenure and promotion review
  (approved by the Chair, Dean, and Provost)
• One of the three areas must be rated exemplary OR
  candidate must demonstrate significant
  achievement in the two areas of 1)teaching and
  2)research professional development.

9
PROMOTION TO PROFESSOR

• Faculty are eligible for promotion to Professor
  after seven years in rank at the College
• Only in exceptional cases may a faculty member
  petition for early promotion (approved by the
  Provost, Dean and Chair)
• Requires that the candidate holds the highest
  appropriate terminal degree
• A candidate for promotion to professor must
  demonstrate sustained high quality and effective
  teaching
• Evidence of either exemplary performance in at
  least one of the specified professional
  competency areas OR significant achievement in
  all three areas is required

10
PROMOTION TO SENIOR INSTRUCTOR

• Promotion to Senior Instructor requires
• sustained exemplary performance in teaching
• active and sustained participation in
  departmental and college-wide advising
• Clear evidence of promise for continued
  development in pedagogy
• Active and sustained participation in service

11
TEACHING

• Effective teaching is the primary means by which
  faculty achieve tenure, promotion, and successful
  third-year review at the College of Charleston.
• Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor
  requires sustained effectiveness in teaching
• Promotion to Professor requires sustained high
  quality and effective teaching
• Promotion to Senior Instructor requires sustained
  exemplary performance in teaching

12
TEACHING Required Evidence

• Packets must include evidence of teaching
  effectiveness, such as
• Information in the narrative
• Syllabi from representative courses
• Examples of assignments, lists of readings, and
  examples of other class materials, graded and
  un-graded
• Numerical summaries of student evaluations
• Departmental summaries of student evaluations
• Recent graduate surveys (to be collected and
  added to the packet by the Chair)
• Departmental Colleague letters that discuss
  teaching (to be added to the packet by the Chair)

13
TEACHING Evaluation Summaries

• Candidates are asked to include tables that
  summarize teaching evaluations during evaluation
  periodone table per course taught and comparing
  the numbers to the departments average
• (Tables to be furnished by Institutional
  Research)
• PHIL 101 Fall02 Fall04 Spr06 Avg
  Dept Avg
• Well prep. 3.5 5.1 5.4
  4.7 5.2
• Underst. 3.8 4.7 5.2
  4.6 5.0
• Express
• Helpful

14
TEACHING Optional Evidence

• Information from colleagues resulting from
  classroom visitations
• Information from colleagues who have team-taught
  with candidate (e.g., perhaps in form of an
  extra-departmental colleague letter)
• Written portions of student evaluations

15
RESEARCH AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

• Tenure and promotion to Associate Professor
  requires clear evidence of high promise for
  continued high quality scholarship and
  professional activity.
• Promotion to Professor requires clear evidence of
  continuing quality scholarship.
• For Promotion to senior instructor (or
  retention), clear evidence of promise for
  continued development in pedagogy
• A record of consistent productivity is an
  indicator of such promise in all cases.

16
RESEARCH AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT-Evidence

• Evidence for professional accomplishments
  includes refereed scholarly books or refereed
  scholarly journal articles (or the equivalent in
  the arts).
• The quality and substance of publications is of
  primary importance
• Narrative including some focus of future
  directions
• Departmental Colleague letters that critically
  evaluate the quality of the work (to be added by
  the chair)
• Optional External review

17
RESEARCH AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT-Presenting
Evidence

• Works published during the period under review or
  accepted for publication are considered.
• In the case of co-authored publications, an
  indication of the candidates contribution should
  be included.
• Standard disciplinary bibliographic form for
  citations, including page numbers, should be
  used.
• When applicable, candidates must provide evidence
  that work is refereed and describe how it was
  refereed
• Information about the quality of the journal is
  useful. (E.g., acceptance rates, impact
  numbers, journal rank in field or subfield
  source of ranking, of academic library
  subscriptionsavailable data varies
  considerably.)

18
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT-Evidence for Senior
Instructors

• Narrative
• Participation in workshops, conferences, etc.
• Production of scholarly or creative works that
  are pedagogical in nature
• Chairing or serving as a discussant on a panel at
  a professional meeting
• Serving as an officer or board member of a
  professional organization
• Departmental Colleague letters that critically
  evaluate professional development activities (to
  be added by the chair)

19
SERVICE

• Tenure and promotion to the rank of Associate
  Professor requires active and sustained
  participation in service to the College.
• Promotion to the rank of Professor requires
  active and sustained participation in a
  leadership capacity in service to the College.
• Promotion to Senior Instructor requires active
  and sustained participation in service to the
  College.
• Candidates should clearly distinguish among areas
  of service to the department, the College, and
  the community, including professional and
  academic associations.

20
SERVICE-Evidence

• Narrative.
• Departmental colleague letters.
• Some extra-departmental colleague letters are
  required (except for 3rd year review), and these
  most often address service. Sometimes these
  letters address teaching instead, and--much more
  rarely-- some address research.
  Extra-departmental colleague letters need not
  address all three. (E.g., they could all address
  service exclusively.)
• Chairs annual evaluations

21
PANEL CHAIR RESPONSIBILITIES

• Collect Colleague Letters
• Solicit and collect Recent Graduate Surveys
• Arrange for an appropriate external member to
  serve on all of the departments panels according
  to protocol in FAM
• Arrange for optional External Review according to
  FAM
• Solicit extra-departmental colleague letters
• Interview the Candidate
• Write the Department Panel Letter
• Inform candidate of the vote count (All
  candidates must sign panel letter.)

22
PANEL CHAIR RESPONSIBILITIES Recent Graduate
Surveys

• A minimum of 40 surveys are to be sent
• Uniform demographic sheet to be sent by all
  departments
• Surveys for 3rd year reviews are optional
• Panel chairs should include an explanation of how
  Recent Graduate Opinions are collected.
• Panel Chairs should include a list of graduates
  contacted.

23
PANEL CHAIR RESPONSIBILITIESColleague Letters

• Chairs should advise departmental panel members
• Letters written by individual panel members
  should be evaluative.
• Letters should explain how and to what extent the
  criteria have been met.
• Colleague letters should be written after
  studying the packet and before formal
  departmental deliberations take place.
• A separate colleague letter by the department
  chair is optional
• Colleague letters by untenured faculty members
  are optional
• Please Note We welcome colleague letters from
  all members of a department, including in
  particular the Department Chair. (Junior faculty
  writing letters should have access to public
  portions of candidates packets.)

24
PANEL CHAIR RESPONSIBILITIESDepartmental Panel
Letter

• Departmental panel letter should
• Summarize all of the panel discussion, positive
  negative
• Address how and to what extent the candidate
  meets the criteria in each competency area
• Discuss how and to what extent the candidate
  meets the criterion of exemplary performance in
  at least one specified competency area, or
  significant achievement in both teaching
  research (tenure), or all three areas (promotion
  to Professor)
• Include a thorough assessment of the quality of a
  candidates refereed or juried works
• Include an assessment of the quality of a
  candidates invited publications or creative
  works
• Include discussion of external (to the College)
  evaluation of scholarly work, where appropriate.

25
PANEL CHAIR RESPONSIBILITIESOptional External
Reviews

• FAM now outlines the procedure to follow for
  conducting an external review of research
• Reviewers must be asked to identify their
  relationship (if any) to the candidate
• The panel chair should describe how the external
  reviewers were chosen
• The panel chair should provide the letter used to
  solicit the reviews
• Avoid close collaborators and thesis advisors

26
CANDIDATE RESPONSIBILITIES

• Preparation of a packet of materials
  demonstrating how and to what extent the
  standards have been met in the three competency
  areas
• Teaching
• Research and Professional Development
• Service

27
EXECUTIVE BINDERItems Supplied by Candidate

• Curriculum Vitae
• Letter of Appointment or Letter of Promotion
• Annual Evaluations
• Evaluation Letter from Third-Year Review
• Narrative (10 pages maximum)
• Syllabi from Three Representative Courses
• Class Materials from Representative Courses
• Tables produced by Institutional Research
  summarizing teaching evaluation scores
• Numerical Summaries of Student Evaluations
• Departmental Summaries of Student Evaluations
• Sample Publications (three maximum)

28
EXECUTIVE BINDERItems Supplied by Panel Chair

• Departmental Panel Letter
• Colleague Letters (required from all tenured
  faculty in the department except the department
  chair or other members undergoing review for the
  same rank)
• Optional Peer Reviews of Classroom Performance
• Optional External Reviews of Research and
  Professional Development
• Recent Graduate Surveys (optional for 3rd year)
• Extra-departmental, institutional colleague
  letters about candidates teaching, research or
  service (all of which are optional for 3rd year)

29
EXECUTIVE BINDERItems Supplied by Dean

• Deans independent evaluation of the candidate

30
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS

• All additional course syllabi for period under
  review
• Additional course materials for the
  representative courses included in the Executive
  Binder
• All additional publications or creative works,
  including documentation
• Externally funded grant proposals
• Written comments from student evaluations
  (optional)

31
TENURE AND PROMOTION COMMITTEE RESPONSIBILITIES

• Reviews all evidence in executive and
  supplemental binders
• Makes an independent assessment of the candidate
• May interview the candidate, the chair, the dean,
  or other members of the department
• Make a written recommendation to the President
• Notify each candidate, department chair, and the
  appropriate Dean in writing of its recommendation

32
A Word about Interviews

• Most common reasons we end up interviewing
  candidates
• We need more information as to how publications
  were refereed
• We need an update on manuscripts out for review
• We cannot determine from the CV which work was
  conducted during the time in rank at the College
• We need more information to determine a
  candidates contribution to the work
• We need more information about future research
  and professional development plans
• We want to give candidates a chance to defend
  themselves against any criticisms which have
  emerged at any level of the review process

33
Calendar

• By September 15 packets due to chairs
• By November 1 Panel deliberations are finished,
  panel letters are signed and all materials are
  delivered to Dean
• By December 1 Deans complete their reviews and
  letters and deliver packets to Academic Affairs
• By February 25 TP Committee gives
  recommendations to the Provost and the President

34
Some Changes in Procedure (2009-2010 Review Cycle)

• For Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor,
  candidates must meet the criterion of either
  exemplary performance in one of the 3 competency
  areas or significant achievement in the two areas
  of teaching and research and professional
  development. (Former criterion was exemplary
  performance in at least one of the 3 areas.)
• For promotion to Professor, candidates must meet
  the criterion of either exemplary performance in
  at least one of the 3 competency areas or
  significant achievement in all 3 areas. (Former
  criterion was exemplary performance in at least
  one of the 3 areas.)
• In addition, for promotion to Professor,
  candidates must demonstrate sustained high
  quality and effective teaching. (Former
  criterion was exemplary teaching effectiveness.)
• Candidates now sign and receive a copy of their
  departmental panel letter.
• Calendar has been made consistent with the FAM.

35
Some Changes in Procedure (Prior to 2009/2010
Review Cycle)

• Extra-departmental letters are no longer required
  for 3rd Year review
• Recent graduate surveys are no longer required
  for 3rd Year review
• Colleague letters from untenured faculty are no
  longer required
• Summary tables of student evaluations produced by
  Institutional Research are to be included
• Departmental Student Evaluation summaries are to
  be included
• The Department Chair is no longer required to
  write a separate colleague letter

36
QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION