91�ֿ�

The policies and procedures for reappointment are included in the University policy and procedures regarding faculty reappointment (See, University Policy Register 3342-6-16).  Each academic year, reappointment guidelines are distributed by the Office of the Provost.  Probationary tenure-track faculty members are reviewed by the Program’s Ad Hoc RTP Committee (See, Section III of this Handbook).  The FAC, in consultation with the Chair, assigns two (2) faculty members to visit the classes of each probationary faculty member and generally evaluate the faculty member’s teaching performance.  A written report of the evaluation is submitted to the Chair for placement in the faculty member’s reappointment file.  Probationary faculty will also create an updated file that is presented to the Chair who will make these materials available to the Ad Hoc RTP Committee. Each probationary faculty member is discussed by the committee which then votes on the faculty member’s reappointment.  The Chair independently assesses the accomplishments of each probationary faculty member and forwards her/his recommendation and the committee's recommendation to the Dean.  The Chair informs probationary faculty of the committee's recommendation and provides a copy of her/his recommendation to the Dean.  Probationary faculty members who are not to be reappointed must be notified according to the schedule established in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

For probationary faculty, reappointment is contingent upon demonstration of adequate progress toward the requirements for tenure.  Moreover, the faculty member must have established and articulated short and long term plans for achieving these goals.  For faculty members following the traditional tenure clock for Assistant Professors, the review after completion of three (3) full years in the probationary period at 91�ֿ� is particularly critical. Upon completion of the third year of the probationary period, faculty reviewing a candidate for reappointment should consider the record of the candidate’s achievements to date.  This record should be considered a predictor of future success.  The hallmark of a successful candidate is a record of compelling evidence of impact upon the discourse of her/his discipline. This record can be demonstrated through review of the candidate’s grants and peer reviewed work including assessment of the impact (as measured by the quality of the journal publishing the paper/journal impact factor) or citation indexes such as the ISI Science Citation Index. Specific concerns expressed by the Ad Hoc RTP Committee and/or the Chair during this stage of the probationary period should be addressed by the candidate in subsequent reappointment reviews. Finally, the overall evaluation of a candidate for reappointment must include consideration of the faculty member's personal integrity and professional behavior as recognized by the University community.  A sound ethical approach to all aspects of teaching, research, publication, and the academic profession is expected of all who seek reappointment in the Program.  A candidate who fails to demonstrate likely success in the tenure process will be notified promptly that she/he will not be reappointed.

In the event that concerns about a candidate’s performance are raised during the reappointment process, the Ad Hoc RTP Committee and the Chair shall provide detailed, prescriptive comments to serve as constructive feedback.  If such concerns arise during a review that occurs after completion of three (3) full years in the probationary period, the Chair, in consultation with the FAC, will advise and work with the candidate on a suitable, positive plan for realignment with the Program’s tenure and promotion expectations; however, the candidate is solely responsible for her/his success in implementing this plan.

From time to time, personal and/or family circumstances may arise that require an untenured faculty member to need to request that her/his probationary period be extended.  Upon request, a faculty member may be granted an extension of the probationary period which has been traditionally called “tolling” or “stopping the tenure clock.”  The University policy and procedures governing modification of the faculty probationary period is included in the University Policy Register. (See, University Policy Register 3342-6-13)

The policies and procedures for tenure are included in the University policy and procedures regarding faculty tenure (See, University Policy Register 3342-6-14) and the policies and procedures for promotion are included in the University policy and procedures regarding faculty promotion (See, University Policy Register 3342-6-15).  Each academic year, tenure and promotion guidelines are distributed by the Office of the Provost.  Tenure and promotion are separate decisions.  The granting of tenure is a decision that plays a crucial role in determining the quality of university faculty and the national and international status of the University.  The awarding of tenure must be based on convincing documented evidence that the faculty member has achieved a significant body of scholarship that has had an impact on her/his discipline, excellence as a teacher, and has provided effective service.  The candidate is also be expected to continue and sustain, over the long term, a program of high quality teaching, scholarship and relevant to the mission of the candidate’s academic unit(s) and to the mission of the University.  Tenure considerations can include evaluation of accomplishments prior to arrival at 91�ֿ� to examine consistency, as well as grant proposals submitted but not funded, proposals pending, papers “in review” or “in press,” graduate students currently advised, and any other materials that may reflect on the candidate’s potential for a long-term successful career.  The tenure decision is based on all of the evidence available to determine the candidate’s potential to pursue a productive career. On the other hand, promotion is recognition based on a candidate’s accomplishments completed during the review period and promotion decisions are based on papers published, grants received and graduate students graduated during the review period, as well as teaching evaluations and service to the University.

Consideration for promotion to Professor differs from consideration for promotion to Associate Professor.  Promotion to Associate Professor is recognition for establishing a career likely to achieve national/international prominence as evidenced by extramural grants received, papers published in the refereed scientific literature, students graduated, etc.  Promotion to Professor recognizes the highest level of university achievement and national/international prominence.  Evidence for this prominence includes a record of sustained major extramural funding from highly competitive funding sources and a record of increased prominence in and impact on the field.

Many factors and criteria, both subjective and objective, are considered in recommending a faculty member for tenure and advancement in academic rank. The overall evaluation of a candidate for tenure and promotion shall include consideration of the faculty member's personal integrity and professional behavior as recognized by the University community.  A sound ethical approach to all aspects of teaching, research, publication, and the academic profession are expected of all who seek tenure and promotion in the Program.

The Ad Hoc RTP Committee shall consider the following areas of faculty performance when making recommendations on tenure and promotion.  The tables and text below are designed to facilitate assessment of performance of those candidates who are being evaluated for tenure and promotion.  During the probationary period, these tools should be used for developmental assistance and projection of future success in achieving tenure and promotion.

Tables 2, 3, and 4 provide guidelines for the assessment of a faculty member’s performance and a rating scale for use in the evaluation of candidates.  For promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor the faculty member must meet the criteria for an “excellent” rating in either scholarship or teaching with at least a “very good” rating in the other category. University citizenship must at least meet the minimum Program criteria as outlined in Table 3.  These same categories and assessment tools apply for tenure decisions.            

A candidate for promotion to Professor must meet the criteria for an “excellent” rating in scholarship and teaching.   University citizenship must exceed the minimum Program criteria.  A candidate for promotion to Professor may not have equal activity in scholarship, teaching and service as he/she becomes more specialized.

Appointments for full-time non-tenure track (NTT) faculty are governed by the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement and are made annually. Renewal of appointment is contingent upon programmatic need, satisfactory performance of previously assigned responsibilities, and budgeted resources to support the position.

Upon completion of the third year, faculty reviewing a candidate for reappointment should consider the record of the candidate’s achievements to date.  This record should be considered a predictor of future success.  The hallmark of a successful candidate is a record of successful research and teaching. Successful research can be demonstrated through review of the candidate’s grants and peer reviewed work including assessment of the impact (as measured by the quality of the journal publishing the paper/journal impact factor) or citation indexes such as the ISI Science Citation Index. Successful teaching can be demonstrated through peer reviews and Student Surveys of Instruction.  Specific concerns expressed by the Ad Hoc RTP Committee and/or the Chair during this stage of the probationary period should be addressed by the candidate in subsequent reappointment reviews. Finally, the overall evaluation of a candidate for reappointment must include consideration of the faculty member's personal integrity and professional behavior as recognized by the University community.  A sound ethical approach to all aspects of teaching, research, publication, and the academic profession is expected of all who seek reappointment in the Program.  A candidate who fails to meet these standards will be notified promptly that she/he will not be reappointed.

In the event that concerns about a candidate’s performance are raised during the reappointment process, the Ad Hoc RTP Committee and the Chair shall provide detailed, prescriptive comments to serve as constructive feedback.  If such concerns arise during a third-year full performance review, the Chair, in consultation with the FAC, will advise and work with the candidate on a suitable, positive plan for realignment with the Program’s expectations; however, the candidate is solely responsible for her/his success in implementing this plan.