600.00 Review of Faculty

 
  • Table of Contents
  • 602.00Definitions
  • 603.00Preamble

  • 610.00Types 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

  • 620.00Role, 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

  • 630.00University Criteria and Standards for Retention, Promotion, Tenure, and Special Review
  • 631.00 Categories of Expectations
  • 632.00 University Criteria
  • 633.00 University Standards

  • 640.00University-wide Standards for Retention

  • 650.00University-wide Standards for Tenure

  • 660.00University-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
 

602.00 Definitions

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 servicesuch as holding office in a professional society, serving as an editor on an editorial board, and reviewing manuscripts for professional journals;public servicewhich 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.


603.00 Preamble

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.

603.02 Philosophy

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.

603.04 Standards

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.

603.05 Procedures

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 Senate 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 their 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 inSec. 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 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.

633.02 Excellence

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