|
> MSU Policy and Procedures > Faculty Handbook
SECTION CONTENTS
602.00 Definitions
603.00 Preamble
610.00 Types of Review
611.00 Review Based on Evaluation of Total Performance
612.00 Computing Length of Service
613.00 Eligibility for Tenure
614.00 Eligibility for Promotion
615.00 Eligibility for Special Review
616.00 Reappointment with Tenure and/or Promotion
617.00 Notice of Non-Retention
618.00 Post-Tenure Review of Faculty
618.01 Assessment of Annual Review
618.02 Post-Tenure Review
620.00 Role, Scope, Criteria, Standards and Procedures Documents
621.00 Development of Department and College Role and Scope Statements
622.00 Development of Department and College Criteria, Standards, and Procedures Documents
623.00 Contents of Department and College Documents
624.00 Availability to Faculty
630.00 University Criteria and Standards for Retention, Promotion, Tenure, and Special Review
631.00 Categories of Expectations
632.00 University Criteria
633.00 University Standards
640.00 University-wide Standards for Retention
650.00 University-wide Standards for Tenure
660.00 University-wide Standards for Appointment and Promotion
661.00 Standards for Rank of Assistant Professor
662.00 Standards for Rank of Associate Professor
663.00 Standards for Rank of Professor
As used in this section and in
700.00 and
800.00, the following
terms have the following meanings: "Academic faculty" are tenurable
faculty responsible for advancing the mission of the University through
teaching, scholarship and service.
"Candidate" means any tenurable faculty member who is being reviewed
under the policies and procedures of this Handbook.
"College" means the tenured and tenurable faculty members, department
administrators, assistant or associate deans and deans who comprise a recognized
administrative division of the University and who are responsible for
establishing the academic policies, requirements and procedures of that
unit.
"Consulting" means "ANY ADDITIONAL ACTIVITY BEYOND DUTIES
ASSIGNED BY THE INSTITUTION, PROFESSIONAL IN NATURE AND BASED IN THE APPROPRIATE
DISCIPLINE, FOR WHICH THE INDIVIDUAL RECEIVES ADDITIONAL PERSONAL REMUNERATION
DURING THE CONTRACT YEAR." [MUS Policy 401.1] Remuneration for consulting
is paid by agencies or individuals outside the University and the funds upon
which consulting payments are drawn are not controlled by the University.
Evidence of teaching or research/creative activity derived from these activities
may be included in faculty review dossiers provided the candidate has filed the
appropriate disclosure documents and received written University approval for
these activities. (See 1130.00.)
"Creative Activity" is a form of scholarship which generates new
aesthetic experiences through composition, design, production, direction,
performance, exhibition, synthesis, or discovery and involves the presentation
of that experience. This work includes creating new works of art, film, theater,
music, and architecture; public performance and exhibiting creative works.
"Criteria and Standards" "Criteria" are the variables examined
in an evaluation. "Standards" are the levels or degrees of performance
which measure success in meeting criteria.
"Department" means the tenured and tenurable faculty members and a
department head or department chair who comprise a recognized administrative
unit of a college and are responsible for establishing the academic policies,
requirements and procedures of that unit.
"Department head" means the appointed administrator of a department.
For the purpose of faculty review, it may also mean the committee responsible
for conducting the annual review of faculty performance.
"Differential staffing/differential assignment" means a system of
specialized staffing in which workload expectations are allowed to differ among
faculty; the split of responsibilities may vary from individual to individual
within a department and for one individual over time.
"Effectiveness" means meeting or exceeding the standards of the
department and college, discipline or profession as appropriate for the
individual's assignment.
"Excel/Excellence" means achieving substantial recognition from
students, clients, colleagues, and/or peers in the profession, appropriate to
the activity.
"Faculty with Instructional Expectations" means tenurable faculty who
have responsibilities in each area of teaching, research/creative activity, and
service.
"Faculty with Professional Practice Expectations" means tenurable
faculty who have responsibilities in any sub-set of the areas of teaching,
research/creative activity, or outreach service.
"Letter of Hire" means the initial letter offering a tenurable
position to an employee. The letter of hire is intended as a temporary contract
for the period from the date of hire until the issuance of the Board of Regents
contract. The letter of hire specifies the initial terms, conditions, and
expectations of the position.
"Outreach" means teaching, scholarship and service activities directed
toward the benefit of citizens which address their specific economic,
educational, environmental, social and cultural needs. Outreach may
include program development and delivery through MSU-Bozeman's Extension
Service; providing professional expertise and advice; public presentations;
assistance to communities and individuals.
"Research" is a form of scholarship which involves discovery,
application and/or integration of new knowledge and the dissemination of that
knowledge. This work includes conducting specific research projects;
supervising research staff and postdoctoral associates; securing and
administering grants and contracts; writing/editing books, articles, and other
research-based materials representing one's original or collaborative research;
developing new clinical practice models, presentations at scholarly
conferences.
"Service" assists individuals or organizations in solving problems
through consultation and information transfer. Service activities fall into
three categories: professional service such as holding office in a
professional society, serving as an editor on an editorial board, and reviewing
manuscripts for professional journals; public service which means
providing service within one's professional discipline to the general public
rather than students, the institution or the profession; and University
service which facilitates the effective operation of the
institution.
"Students" means persons formally enrolled in a recognized course of
study leading to credit or certification and those enrolled in non-credit
presentations, seminars, and workshops.
"Teaching" fosters critical thinking, develops creativity, and
promotes citizenship and professional competency. It includes all of the
following activities: class preparation; scheduled and unscheduled
instruction in classes, seminars, and workshops, both on and off campus,
informal meetings, help sessions, individual instruction and office hours;
laboratory and studio or clinical-based teaching and training; course and
curriculum development; thesis and professional project assistance and
participation in the presentation and defense of theses and projects; grading
and assessment of student work; academic and career advising of undergraduate
and graduate students; supervision of student teachers, teaching assistants and
professional interns; and, for library faculty, any tasks that contribute to the
overall academic enterprise.
"Terminal degree" means the educational attainment identified by the
department and approved by the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs
as the minimal level of preparation in a discipline or profession required for
appointment. A department may designate different degrees as "terminal" for
different specialties within the discipline and for faculty with instructional
or professional practice expectations.
Revised, July 1, 2002.
Montana State University-Bozeman is committed to "undergraduate and
graduate education, research of both a basic and applied nature, and
professional and public service to the state, region and nation." MSU
Role and Scope Statement, 1990. (See
100.00.) Faculty
dedicated to this mission produce substantial benefits for society, including
advances in fundamental and applied knowledge, technological innovation, new
aesthetic experiences, improved health and well-being, and a broadly educated
citizenry. Outreach is a fundamental component of this mission and is affirmed
as an appropriate and laudable faculty activity.
603.01 Purpose of Faculty Review
As the land-grant University of the state of Montana, Montana State
University-Bozeman is committed to the mission of teaching, scholarship and
service which characterizes higher educational institutions chartered under the
Morrill Land Grant Act. The University's commitment to academic excellence is
dependent upon the quality of the instruction, research/creative activity and
service performed by its faculty. The purpose of faculty review is to assess the
quality of the faculty member's performance and reward performance that furthers
the University's mission.
A university is more than a collection of autonomous departments or
individual faculty striving for personal or professional satisfaction. To
achieve and maintain excellence, Montana State University-Bozeman must act as a
unified community of scholars linked by shared values that are consistent with
the University's fundamental goals of teaching, research/creative activity, and
service.
Teaching, the imparting of knowledge, skills, and abilities to
learners, is the heart of the University's mission. Faculty performance in
teaching must be evaluated in terms of a wide range of criteria including course
content and objectives, classroom effectiveness, student learning and
achievement and student advising. This document challenges faculty and
administrators to adopt rigorous strategies for the assessment of teaching
performance, including peer, student and self-evaluations, and student
outcomes.
Research and creative activity, the means through which society
increases its understanding of the natural world and the human condition, is a
fundamental responsibility of the University community. In submitting
documentation for tenure and promotion, faculty are expected to submit for
review their scholarly works which have advanced their discipline or
profession.
Outreach and public service, the strategies through which the
practical impacts of scholarship are made available to the state and nation, are
essential to the University's Land Grant mission. This document calls upon
faculty and their departments to revitalize their commitments to outreach and
public service and challenges them to reward effectiveness and excellence in
these activities. Departments and colleges shall establish procedures, criteria
and standards for the evaluation of service, outreach, and consulting activities
submitted for faculty review.
Revised July 1, 1999.
603.03 Expectations
Montana State University-Bozeman is served by a faculty with a wide range of
skills, interests, and responsibilities. Thus, different faculty members may
have very different assignments in terms of teaching, research/creative activity
and service. The Criteria and Standards portion of this document (630.00 to
633.03) carries forth this principle by distinguishing two general
categories of academic faculty as defined in
602.00, those
with "instructional expectations" and those with "professional practice
expectations" who have responsibilities in any sub-set of these three areas.
Faculty with professional practice expectations are not expected to meet the
criteria and standards in any area in which they are not assigned
responsibilities. Each faculty member's letter of hire or subsequently
negotiated role statement shall specify which category of expectations
apply.
Faculty may be appointed to positions with professional practice expectations
only by agreement of the department head, dean, and Provost and Vice President
for Academic Affairs. Appointments may not be converted to or from positions
with professional practice expectations without the express written consent of
the Provost. Once appointed to a position, faculty will be reviewed according to
the standards appropriate to instructional or professional expectations.
This section requires that differences in expectations be recognized, valued
and respected at all levels during the review of faculty performance. Faculty
review must take into account the resources available to accomplish the faculty
member's assignment including release time for scholarly activities, library
support, and the availability of computing facilities and technical support
staff. As an integral part of their assignments, faculty may be expected to seek
available extramural funds, appropriate to their field of study.
Modified, July 1, 1998.
As defined below, sustained effectiveness in all areas of a faculty
member's assignment is a University-wide requirement for retention, tenure and
promotion. In addition, the promise of excellence is required for tenure
and promotion to Associate Professor rank; a record of excellence is
required for promotion to Professor rank.
It is the responsibility of the faculty member under review to demonstrate to
the satisfaction of colleagues and professional peers that high standards of
performance have been met.
This section promotes University-wide academic oversight by establishing
independent reviews at the all levels (primary, intermediate and final). In this
process, broad University criteria and standards, stated below, are
refined by the colleges, and articulated further by the departments. The review
of individual faculty is initiated at the primary level, where the relevant
disciplinary expertise is located and is then carried to the college and
University levels, where successively broader perspectives are employed.
Any committee identified herein may adopt "Standard Operating Procedures"
that provide necessary interpretation of these policies so long as they do not
conflict with the policies and procedures outlined in this section. Such
procedures must be approved by the Chair of Faculty Council and the Provost and
Vice President for Academic Affairs.
Revised, July 1999.
610.00 Types of Review
Evaluation of faculty members at Montana State University-Bozeman is a
continuing process. Several types of review take place at specific times in the
career of a faculty member:
- A.
- Annual Review, which is conducted in the Spring semester and based
upon the previous calendar year's activities.
-
- B.
- Third Year Review, which is conducted in the Fall semester of the
faculty member's third year of appointment in a tenurable position and must be
based upon no fewer than three (3) preceding semesters' activities.
-
- C.
- Tenure Review, which commences in the Fall semester of the faculty
member's sixth year of full-time service in a tenurable position. The award of
tenure automatically advances the candidate to the rank of Associate
Professor, unless that rank has been previously awarded.
-
- D.
- Promotion Review, which is conducted simultaneous with tenure
review if promotion to Associate Professor has not previously been awarded or
is conducted at the request of the faculty member, the department head, or
department review committee. Promotion is normally awarded after the
completion of no fewer than five (5) years in academic rank. (See
614.00.)
-
- E.
- Special Review, which is conducted upon the acceptance of the
written recommendation of the department review committee, department head,
college review committee, college dean, University Promotion and Tenure
committee, or Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs. (See
615.00.)
- F. Post-Tenure Review, which is
conducted in the event a faculty member receives two
consecutive annual review
evaluations of "unsatisfactory." (See Sec.
618.00)
Revised, July 1, 2003.
611.00 Review Based on Evaluation of Total
Performance
Third year, tenure and promotion reviews are based upon cumulative
performance in each area (teaching, research/creative activity, and service)
over the total period preceding review. In contrast, annual reviews assess the
faculty member's performance averaged over all areas within a year. Thus, a
record of having met performance expectations as indicated by Annual Reviews
does not necessarily guarantee the candidate has assembled and demonstrated a
cumulative record that meets the standards for retention, tenure or
promotion.
612.00 Computing Length of Service
Only time on tenurable appointment is used in computing length of service at
MSU. As per Board of Regents Policy, time spent on authorized leave of absence
does not count as probationary service unless the faculty member and the
President agree to the contrary, in writing, at the time leave is granted. (See
MUS Policy 706.1, quoted in
510.00, B.) Time
in nontenurable appointments does not count towards tenure.
613.00 Tenure Review Timelines
Faculty members will be reviewed for tenure in theft sixth year (or equivalent year if credited for prior service) of full-time service in a tenurable position.
Revised July 1, 2007.
613.10 Credit for Prior Service
No more than three (3) years of full-time service at another institution may be credited toward determining the sixth year of service. The amount of creditable prior service is determined at the time of initial appointment and must be confirmed in writing by the provost.
Revised July 1, 2007.
613.20 Extending the Tenure Review Period (Stopping the Tenure Clock)
The tenure review period established at the time of hire may be extended for good cause whether or not a faculty member takes a leave of absence from work, provided that no combination of extensions shall be granted for more than three (3) years total.
For purposes of this policy, good cause includes authorized leave of absence from campus, birth or adoption of a child, serious illness of candidate, administrative or special assignment given by the university or similar unanticipated circumstances that may limit the faculty member’s available time to devote to teaching, research and service.
Revised July 1, 2007.
613.21 Extending the Tenure Review Period by Taking an Authorized Leave of Absence
A (TENURABLE) FACULTY MEMBER’S TIME SPENT ON AN AUTHORIZED LEAVE OF ABSENCE FROM CAMPUS WILL NOT COUNT AS PROBATIONARY PERIOD SERVICE, UNLESS THE FACULTY MEMBER AND THE PRESIDENT AGREE TO THE CONTRARY IN WRITING AT THE TIME THE LEAVE IS GRANTED [SEE BOR POLICY 706.1(2) AND
SECTION 510.00(2)].
For purposes of this policy, authorized leaves of absence include any combinations of annual leave, sick leave, maternity leave, parental leave, military leave, family and medical leave and leave without pay that result in the faculty member’s absence from campus for one semester or more. See, Section 1000 of the Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual.
Revised July 1, 2007.
613.30 Requesting Extension of the Tenure Review Date
Any faculty member may request an extension of his or her tenure review date by submitting a request in writing to the Department Head as soon as possible after the need for extension arises. Since external letters are required for tenure, written requests for extension should be made by April 30 of the year of the tenure review. In cases of extreme and unforeseen emergency, written requests for extension may be made no later than one week before the date the candidate’s dossier must be submitted to the primary review committee.
The tenure review date will be extended for good cause, including authorized leave of absence from campus [Section 613.22J, birth or adoption of a child, illness, administrative or special assignment given by the university or similar unanticipated circumstances that may limit the faculty member’s available time to devote to teaching, research and service.
The extension of the tenure review date must be approved in writing by the provost. The tenure review will be extended upon request for one year at a time, consistent with this policy.
A. Extension of the tenure review date for birth or adoption of a child is available to either parent or both parents and may be granted for up to a total of one year per child not to exceed a total of two years.
B. Extension of the tenure review date for other purposes may not exceed two years.
C. Extension the tenure review date for all reasons may not exceed three years per faculty member.
Revised July 1, 2007.
613.40 Effect of Extending the Tenure Review Period on Criteria and Standards
Actions authorized under this policy (Section 613.00) that result in extending the original date of a faculty member’s tenure review shall not otherwise affect or alter the criteria and standards for the tenure and promotion review.
Revised July 1, 2007.
614.00 Eligibility for Promotion
Normally, promotion is awarded after the completion of no fewer than five (5)
years of service, which is generally considered the minimum time needed to meet
the standards for promotion described in
660.00 and in
the college and department documents.
Faculty who believe they have met the department, college, and University
standards for promotion and wish to be considered for promotion should submit a
formal request for consideration to the department head and department review
committee. The department head may also request a faculty member to submit
materials for promotion. Since promotion, except in cases of automatic review
with tenure, is optional, a faculty member may withdraw his or her materials
from further consideration at any time during the review process.
Revised, July 1999.
615.00 Eligibility for Special Review
Faculty members may be reviewed at times other than those required for third
year, tenure, and promotion. A special review may be recommended to the
President by the department review committee, department head, college review
committee, college dean, University Promotion and Tenure Committee or the
Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs.
If the recommendation is accepted by the President, he or she shall initiate
a special review by sending a written notice to the faculty member. The notice
of special review shall set forth the nature of the review and identify
appropriate deadlines for its conduct. A special review shall be conducted by
the primary review committee or by a special review committee composed of
academic faculty.
Revised, July 1999.
616.00 Reappointment with Tenure and/or Promotion
Tenure and promotion become effective with the contract immediately following
the review.
616.01 Deadlines for Notification
The Provost shall make every reasonable effort to notify candidates of the
recommendation regarding retention, tenure and promotion by the dates listed
below. In no event shall failure to give notice at these times constitute
retention, an award of tenure or promotion by default.
- A.
- Notice of retention recommendation resulting from third year review shall
be sent by January 15.
-
- B.
- Notice of tenure and tenure-associated promotion recommendations shall be
sent by April 15.
-
- C.
- Notice of non-tenure associated promotion recommendations shall be sent by
May 15.
Revised, July 1, 2004.
617.00 Notice of Non-Retention
Third year, tenure, and special reviews may result in non-retention of the
faculty member. In cases of denial of tenure or non-retention, the faculty
member shall receive notice that his or her next contract will be a terminal
contract.
Failure to give notice shall not constitute an award of continuous tenure by
default.
Revised, July 1, 1998.
617.01 Termination of Employment
Employment will terminate with the expiration of the terminal contract, even
if a conciliation, grievance, or other appeal process has not been concluded as
of the date of termination. The filing of a request for conciliation, grievance,
or other appeal and any subsequent proceedings concerning non-retention or
non-renewal shall not extend the date of termination.
If the conciliation, grievance, or other appeal results in the reversal of
the non-retention or non-renewal decision, the faculty member will be reinstated
to her or his position within the University.
Revised, July 1999.
618.00 Post-Tenure Review of Faculty
Two consecutive "unsatisfactory" performance ratings on a faculty member's
annual review initiates an assessment of the faculty member's most recent annual
review by the faculty member's primary formal review committee and, if deemed
appropriate by this committee, a Post-Tenure Review.
618.01 Assessment of Annual Review
A second consecutive "unsatisfactory" performance rating on a faculty
member's annual review may be appealed as per
Sec. 462.00.
Since the performance evaluation is due to the faculty member early, on March
15, as specified in
Sec. 731.00
and the appeal process takes 20 days, the next higher
level of review's decision on the appeal is due no later than April 5.
If the next higher level of review denies the appeal, the second consecutive
"unsatisfactory" performance rating initiates another assessment of the latest
annual review. This assessment is performed by the faculty member's primary
formal review committee, and is intended to provide a separate faculty opinion
on the annual review..
The committee will assess the faculty member's performance during the
preceding calendar year in light of the remediation plan developed after the
first "unsatisfactory" performance rating (See Sec.
733.00). In performing the assessment, the committee shall use the
same annual review materials provided to the primary administrative reviewer
during the faculty member's annual review. The committee may agree or
disagree with the primary administrative reviewer's annual review and
performance rating. The committee's decision is due to the faculty member three
(3) weeks after the next higher level of review's decision on the appeal, and
thus no later than May 1.
If the committee, by majority vote, finds that the faculty member's
performance has not been "unsatisfactory" (i.e., the committee disagrees with
the "unsatisfactory" rating assigned by the primary administrative reviewer),
then no Post-Tenure Review will be initiated. In this case, and in any
case below in which the Post-Tenure Review process is terminated in the faculty
member's favor, the "unsatisfactory" performance evaluation will be changed to
"below expectations," thus striking the record clean regarding the initiation of
future Post-Tenure Review proceedings regarding the faculty member.
618.02 Post-Tenure Review Process
If, in assessing a faculty member's second consecutive "unsatisfactory"
evaluation, the primary formal review committee, by majority vote, finds that
the faculty member's performance has indeed been "unsatisfactory" (i.e., the
committee agrees with the rating assigned by the primary administrative
reviewer), it shall call for a Post-Tenure Review of the faculty member. The
faculty member shall have fourteen (14) days to respond in writing to the next
higher level of administrative review. The materials generated thus far (e.g.,
from the faculty member, the primary administrative reviewer and the primary
formal review committee), with supporting evidence and written rationales, will
be forwarded to the next higher level of administrative review for appropriate
action no later than May 15. Such action may range from a plan for further
remediation to a recommendation for the revocation of the faculty member's
tenure, to be forwarded to the Provost. The report from the next higher level of
administrative review is due to the Provost in fourteen (14) days, and thus no
later than June 1.
If the action decided upon by the next higher level of administrative review
consists of further remediation, the plan will be constructed by this reviewer
in consultation with the primary administrative reviewer and the faculty member.
This plan will document the specific actions to be taken by the faculty member
over the next review period. If, at the end of this review period, the reviewer
believes that the faculty member has addressed the concerns which initiated the
Post-Tenure Review, then no further action will be taken. If, on the other hand,
the reviewer believes that the faculty member has not addressed these concerns,
he or she shall forward a recommendation for the revocation of the faculty
member's tenure to the Provost.
If, on the other hand, the action decided upon by the next higher level of
administrative review consists of a recommendation for revocation of the faculty
member's tenure, the Provost shall decide whether to accept or reject the
recommendation. If the Provost decides to reject the recommendation, then no
further action will be taken. If, on the other hand, the Provost decides to
accept the recommendation, he or she shall forward this decision to the
President within 30 days, and thus no later than July 1. The President will
initiate a University-level review by sending a written notice to the faculty
member by the first day of the faculty member's yearly contract, typically
August 15. This notice shall set forth the scope and procedures for the review,
and identify appropriate deadlines for its conduct, including a three (3) month
period intended to provide the faculty member ample time to prepare as
comprehensive a dossier as he or she sees fit for responding to the
"unsatisfactory" performance evaluations and the initiation of the Post-Tenure
Review process. Thus, the faculty member's dossier is due in the
President's Office no later than November 22. The review shall be conducted by a
special Post-Tenure Review committee composed of University-wide academic
faculty appointed by the President. The decision of the committee is due to the
President's Office within three (3) weeks, and thus no later than December 15.
If the Post-Tenure Review Committee, by majority vote, concurs with the
recommendation for the revocation of the faculty member's tenure, the President
may initiate proceedings for termination for cause for substantial failure to carry out
the responsibilities of a faculty member, by referring the matter to the Committee on
Service (See Sec.
1432).
This process must be initiated by January 1. If the Post-Tenure Review
Committee, by majority vote, disagrees with the recommendation, then no further
action will be taken.
In the event that any of the deadlines relating to the Post-Tenure Review
Process described above are missed, the Provost has the right--but not the
obligation--to re-design the schedule. In any event, the Post-Tenure Review
Process must be completed by January 1. While the decision of the
Committee on Service may be appealed to the Commissioner of Higher Education,
neither the Post-Tenure Review Committee nor its outcomes (i.e., neither the
decision of the Post-Tenure Review Committee nor the decisions of the Committee
on Service) can be appealed to the Grievance Committee.
Flow Chart for Post-Tenure Review
Timeline for
Post-Tenure Review Process
620.00 Role, Scope, Criteria, Standards, and Procedures
Documents
Each department and college shall develop and annually review a document
describing its role and scope, defining its responsibilities and obligations in
furtherance of the mission of the University, and setting forth the criteria,
standards and procedures for review of faculty members. If the document is not
updated annually, the last updated and approved document shall be effective.
A candidate for retention will be subject to the department's criteria and
standards (as detailed in the department's Role, Scope, Criteria, Standards, and
Procedures document) in effect at the date of hire. A candidate for tenure will
be subject to the department's criteria and standards in effect on the first day
of the academic year in which retention is conferred. This policy does not cover
the Procedures section of this Handbook or of any applicable Role, Scope,
Criteria, Standards, and Procedures document; a candidate for retention or
tenure will be subject to the Procedures in place at the time of each review.
Revised, July 1999 and July 2003.
621.00 Development of Department and College Role and
Scope Statements
The role and scope statement of the department and college defines the
responsibilities of the unit and guides the department in developing the
criteria, standards and procedures for the review of faculty members. The role
and scope statement of each college identifies how each department contributes
to meeting the responsibilities of the college and forms the basis for the
approval of departmental role and scope statements and for the review and
approval of department criteria, standards and procedures.
622.00 Development of Department and College Criteria,
Standards and Procedures Documents
Department and college criteria for retention, tenure and promotion may
recognize differential staffing and allow for individual uniqueness in faculty
assignments. Standards should not make all faculty perform alike, but
commensurate quality must be expected for all equivalent reviews.
The criteria and standards defined in this document are the minimum
acceptable standards for the University; departments and colleges are expected
to develop criteria and standards based on, and no less rigorous than, those
described herein.
Role, scope, criteria, standards and procedures documents shall be approved
by the department faculty not including the department head (or primary
administrator), the department head serving as the primary administrator of the
academic unit, the college review committee, the college dean, the UPT
Committee, and the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs. In the event
two of these entities cannot agree on a document, the disputing parties will
meet with the administrator at the next higher level in order to produce a
document upon which the disputants can agree.
Revised July 1, 2005.
623.00 Contents of Department and College Documents
The criteria, standards and procedures documents of the department and
college shall, at a minimum, contain the following information, as appropriate:
- A.
- The criteria and standards used to assess a faculty members' contributions
to the role the department and evaluate their performance (effectiveness,
excellence, promise of excellence) in their assigned responsibilities and in
teaching, research/creative activity, and service, according to the type and
level of review.
-
- B.
- Any quantitative and qualitative expectations in terms of job performance,
teaching, research/creative activity, and/or service.
-
- C.
- The procedures used in selecting the membership of review committees.
-
- D.
- The department's designation as to courses and presentations which are to
be evaluated using student evaluation forms and the evaluation instruments to
be used.
-
- E.
- A description of the methods, in addition to student evaluations, to be
used to obtain formal, in-depth assessment of a faculty member's teaching
performance.
Note: University guidelines do not require an
in-depth assessment of teaching for third-year (retention) reviews. However,
college or department guidelines may require such an
assessment.
- F.
- The type of materials accepted or required in the documentation of
research and creative activities and of outreach and public service.
-
- G.
- The dates and times of review.
-
- H.
- The procedures for obtaining outside peer reviews and soliciting internal
letters of support/evaluation.
Note: University guidelines do not require external peer reviews for
third-year (retention) reviews. However, college or department guidelines may
require external reviews.
- I.
- The methods for designating and handling confidential materials.
Revised, July 2000.
624.00 Availability to Faculty
The primary administrative reviewer shall inform each faculty member of the
current department and college criteria and standards documents at the beginning
of their appointments and ensure that faculty receive updates of these documents
as they are revised. (See
451.00.)
Revised, July 1999.
630.00 University Criteria and Standards for Retention,
Promotion, Tenure, and Special Review
Faculty members are formally reviewed for retention (third year and special
reviews), tenure, and promotion according to the policies and procedures
outlined below.
631.00 Categories of Expectations
The University Criteria and Standards discussed in this section refer to two
categories of academic faculty, designated as those with "instructional"
expectations and those with "professional practice" expectations. The category
pertaining to a specific position is normally stated in the faculty member's
letter of hire.
632.00 University Criteria
The criteria on which a faculty member with instructional expectations will
be evaluated shall be the three areas of responsibility: teaching,
research/creative activity, and service. A faculty member with professional
practice expectations will be evaluated in the area or areas of responsibility
(teaching, research/creative activity, or outreach) appropriate to his or her
specific assignment.
Departments and colleges will establish specific standards for the review of
faculty performance.
Revised, July 1999.
633.00 University Standards
Departments and colleges shall establish standards for retention, tenure and
promotion that are no less rigorous than those described below. Each faculty
member must meet the following University-wide standards for appointment,
retention, tenure, and promotion as well as the standards of her or his
department and college.
633.01 Effectiveness
Faculty performance in teaching, research/creative activity, and service will
be judged effective if it meets or exceeds the standards of the
candidate's department and college.
- A.
- Excellence in Teaching.
Faculty performance in teaching will be judged excellent if
it receives substantial recognition from peers and colleagues as well as
current and former students.
- B.
- Excellence in Research/Creative Activity.
Faculty performance in research/creativity activity will be judged
excellent if it receives substantial, international, or national
recognition from peers and clients as having made a significant contribution
to the body of knowledge and creativity germane to the candidate's discipline
or profession.
- C.
- Excellence in Service.
Faculty performance in service will be judged excellent if it
receives substantial recognition by colleagues and peers outside the
University.
- Revised, July 1999.
633.03 Demonstration of Effectiveness and Excellence
- A.
- Effectiveness, excellence, and potential for
excellence in teaching may be demonstrated in the following ways: evaluation
by peers and colleagues within the University, and in-depth assessment of
teaching performance that draws upon current and former students, graduates,
colleagues and clients. Both peer evaluation and an in-depth assessment of
teaching are required for promotion and tenure reviews. Candidates shall
follow the methods for in-depth assessment of teaching performance established
by the department.
Teaching shall be
formally evaluated through means which shall, at
a minimum, include
review by peers, colleagues, and students.
-
Note: University’s guidelines do not require
an in-depth assessment of teaching for third-year (retention) reviews.
However, college or department guidelines may require such an
assessment
-
- B.
- Effectiveness, excellence and potential for excellence in
research/creative activity may be demonstrated in the following ways: through
evaluation by on-campus review committees and administrators, and external
peer reviews. Methods for soliciting external reviews are part of departmental
criteria and standards documents.
Candidates shall list all publications,
presentations, exhibits, and performances in their dossiers and, in addition,
shall submit for review a set of articles, publications, creative endeavors,
or other evidence that, in their judgment, represents their best efforts to
advance the discipline or profession.
Creative activity shall be formally evaluated
through means which shall, at a minimum, include review by peers in the
academic and
professional communities.
Research shall be formally evaluated through
means which shall, at a minimum, include review by peers in the academic and
scientific communities.
Note: University guidelines do not require
external peer reviews for third-year (retention) reviews. However, college
or department guidelines may require such an
assessment.
- C.
- Effectiveness in service/outreach shall be demonstrated through evaluation
by peers and colleagues within the University. Candidates shall list all
service activities in their dossiers and, in addition, shall submit for review
a set of articles, publications, professional endeavors or other evidence
that, in their judgment, represents their best efforts to contribute to and
advance the University, public, and profession.
Service/outreach shall
be formally evaluated through means which
shall,
at a
minimum, include review by peers, colleagues, and/or clients.
Revised, July 2002.
640.00 University-wide Standards for Retention
The University-wide standards for retention of faculty members are:
- A.
- effectiveness in the performance of their responsibilities,
-
- B.
- promise of continuing effectiveness, and
-
- C.
- if appropriate to the level of review, the promise of attainment of the
standards for tenure and promotion, as demonstrated by a clear progression of
accomplishment.
650.00 University-wide Standards for Tenure
651.00 Appointments with Instructional Expectations
The University-wide standards for the award of tenure to faculty with
instructional expectations are:
- A.
- demonstrated and sustained effectiveness in the performance of their
responsibilities in the three areas of teaching, research/creative activity,
and service, appropriate to the assignment as set forth in the letter of hire
and any subsequent role statements,
-
- B.
- demonstrated potential for sustained effectiveness in each of these areas
in the future, and
-
- C.
- demonstrated potential for achieving excellence in teaching and/or
research/creative activity.
- Revised, July 1999.
652.00 Appointments with Professional Practice
Expectations
The University-wide standards for tenure for faculty with professional
practice expectations are:
- A.
- demonstrated and sustained effectiveness in the performance of the
responsibilities of the assignment as set forth in the letter of hire and the
role statements,
-
- B.
- demonstrated potential of sustained effectiveness in the future, and
-
- C.
- demonstrated potential for achieving excellence in at least one of the
areas of teaching, research/creative activity, or service, appropriate to the
responsibilities of the assignment.
660.00 University-wide Standards for Appointment and
Promotion
University-wide standards for appointment and promotion vary by rank.
661.00 Standards for Rank of Assistant Professor
661.01 Appointments with Instructional Expectations
To be appointed as an Assistant Professor, a faculty member with
instructional expectations shall, at a minimum, have:
- A.
- a terminal degree appropriate to the field or department,
-
- B.
- demonstrated potential to teach at the undergraduate and/or graduate
levels, and
-
- C.
- qualifications to conduct research/creative activity in a specialized
field.
661.02 Appointments with Professional Practice Expectations
To be appointed as an Assistant Professor, a faculty member with professional
practice expectations shall, at a minimum, have:
- A.
- a terminal degree appropriate to the field or department, and
-
- B.
- demonstrated potential to carry out the primary duties of his or her
assignments.
662.00 Standards for Rank of Associate Professor
A candidate of Assistant Professor rank shall be expected to be approved for
tenure and promotion to Associate Professor simultaneously, unless Associate
Professor rank has been previously awarded.
662.01 Appointments with Instructional Expectations
To be appointed as an Associate Professor, a faculty member with
instructional expectations shall, at a minimum, have:
- A.
- a terminal degree appropriate to the field or department,
-
- B.
- a record of demonstrated and sustained effectiveness in each of the three
areas of teaching, research/creative activity and service, appropriate to the
assignment as set forth in the letter of hire and role statements, and
-
- C.
- demonstrated potential for achieving excellence in teaching and/or
research/creative activity.
662.02 Appointments with Professional Practice Expectations
To be appointed as an Associate Professor, a faculty member with professional
practice expectations shall, at a minimum, have:
- A.
- a terminal degree appropriate to the field or department,
-
- B.
- a record of demonstrated and sustained effectiveness in the primary
responsibilities of the assignment as set forth in the letter of hire and role
statements,
-
- C.
- demonstrated potential for the achievement of excellence in at least one
of the three areas of teaching, research/creative activity, and service.
663.00 Standards for Rank of Professor
663.01 Appointments with Instructional Expectations
To be appointed as a Professor, a faculty member with instructional
expectations shall, at a minimum, have:
- A.
- a terminal degree appropriate to the field or department,
-
- B.
- a record of demonstrated and sustained effectiveness in each of the three
areas of teaching, research/creative activity, and service, appropriate to the
assignment, and
-
- C.
- a record of excellence in teaching and/or research/creative activity.
663.02 Appointments with Professional Practice Expectations
To be appointed as a Professor, a faculty member with professional practice
expectations shall, at a minimum, have:
- A.
- a terminal degree appropriate to the field or department,
-
- B.
- a record of demonstrated and sustained effectiveness in the primary duties
of their assignment,
-
- C.
- a record of excellence in at least one of the three areas of teaching,
research/creative activity, or service as demonstrated by recognition of the
outstanding nature of the candidate's contributions to the public, the
discipline and/or profession from peers outside the University.
Table of Contents
|
