Department of Curriculum & Instruction Personnel Procedures

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• SUNY - Policies of the Board of Trustees
  
• Proactive Personnel Policies
• Review Terms
• Annual Timelines for Faculty Review
• C&I Personnel Committee Membership
• CPRS Decision-Making Guidelines
• C&I Personnel Committee Procedures
• C&I Department Chair Personnel Guidelines
• Review of Adjuncts

APPENDICES

• Candidate Performance Review Scoring
• CPRS Decision Making Guidelines
• Guidelines for Promotion to Associate Professor
  
• Guidelines for Promotion to Full Professor Teaching Scale
• Research/Scholarship Scale
• Service Scale

POLICIES OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES

The SUNY Board of Trustees has provided general guidelines for the "Appointment of Employees" and the "Evaluation and Promotion of Academic and Professional Employees."

Article XI – Appointment of Employees

Title A. Procedure1. Procedure states, "The chief administrative officer of a college, after seeking consultation, may appoint, reappoint, or recommend to the Chancellor for appointment or reappointment, as may be appropriate to the nature of appointment provided for herein, such persons as are, in his judgment, best qualified. ... For purposes of this Article, the term "consultation" shall mean consideration by the chief administrative officer of a college of recommendations of academic or professional employees, including the committees, if any, of the appropriate department or professional area, and other appropriate sources in connection with appointment or reappointment of a specified employee; ..."

Title B. Continuing Appointment 1. Definition, "A continuing appointment shall be an appointment to a position of academic rank which shall not be affected by changes in such rank and shall continue until resignation, retirement, or termination." 2. Method of Appointment. "The Chancellor, after considering the recommendation of the chief administrative officer of the college concerned, and except as hereinafter permitted with respect to appointment of Distinguished, Distinguished Service, Distinguished Teaching and University Professors, may grant continuing appointments to such persons who, in his judgment, are best qualified."

Article XII – Evaluation and Promotion of Academic and Professional Employees

Title A. Evaluation of Academic Employees 1. Policy. "It is the policy of the University to evaluate employees." 2. Purpose, "The purpose of evaluation pursuant to this Title shall be the appraisal of the extent to which each academic employee has met his or her professional obligation." 3. Criteria, "In conducting evaluations, the chief administrative officer of the college concerned, or designee, may consider, but shall not be limited to consideration of the following:

1. Mastery of subject matter – as demonstrated by such things as advanced degrees, licenses, honors, awards and reputation in the subject matter field.

2. Effectiveness in teaching – as demonstrated by such things as judgment of colleagues, development of teaching materials or new courses and student reaction, as determined from surveys, interviews and classroom observation.

3. Scholarly ability – as demonstrated by such things as success in developing and carrying out significant research work in the subject matter field, contribution to the arts, publications and reputation among colleagues.

4. Effectiveness of University service – as demonstrated by such things as college and University public service, committee work, administrative work and work with students or community in addition to formal teacher-student relationships.

5. Continuing growth – as demonstrated by such things as reading, research or other activities to keep abreast of current developments in the academic employee’s fields and being able to handle successfully increased responsibility."

Title B. Promotion of Academic Employees 1. Procedure. "The chief administrative officer of a college, after giving consideration to recommendations of academic employees, including committees, if any, of the appropriate department or professional area and other appropriate sources in connection with promotion of a specific academic employee, may promote, or recommend to the Chancellor for promotion, such persons as are, in the chief administrative officer’s judgment, best qualified. Nothing contained herein shall prevent the chief administrative officer of the college from taking such promotion action as the chief administrative officer may deem appropriate to the operating requirements of the college. 2. Criteria. Recommendations of academic employees, or their appropriate committees, or other appropriate sources may consider, but shall not be limited to consideration of, the following:

1. Mastery of subject matter – as demonstrated by such things as advanced degrees, licenses, honors, awards and reputation in the subject matter field.

2. Effectiveness in teaching – as demonstrated by such things as judgment of colleagues, development of teaching materials or new courses and student reaction, as determined from surveys, interviews and classroom observation.

3. Scholarly ability – as demonstrated by such things as success in developing and carrying out significant research work in the subject matter field, contribution to the arts, publications and reputation among colleagues.

4. Effectiveness of University service – as demonstrated by such things as college and University public service, committee work, administrative work and work with students or community in addition to formal teacher-student relationships.

5. Continuing growth – as demonstrated by such things as reading, research or other activities to keep abreast of current developments in the academic employee’s fields and being able to handle successfully increased responsibility.

PROACTIVE PERSONNEL POLICIES

SUNY Fredonia engages in careful, rigorous, and fair processes of personnel review so that term-appointed faculty and professional employees have clear ideas of their roles and responsibilities; several opportunities to demonstrate the ways their contributions benefit their department, unit, library, and the campus; and several opportunities for feedback at multiple levels. Effective personnel review also ensures that term-appointed faculty who are granted continuing appointment (the SUNY term for tenure) and term-appointed professionals who are granted permanent appointment meet the standards of their departments/units and show promise of continued effective contributions to the educational, scholarly/creative, community engagement, and operational missions of SUNY Fredonia. The continuing strength of academic programs and institutional effectiveness depends in large part on careful review of those entrusted with implementing the mission of SUNY Fredonia. (HARP)

Department of Curriculum & Instruction Proactive Personnel Policies

The Department of Curriculum and Instruction is a diverse group of varied disciplines. The Department prospers with faculty members who are genuinely creative scholars and inspired teachers and who are dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge. Outstanding intellectual qualities are reflected in teaching, scholarship and service and are the primary criteria for recommending reappointment, promotion and tenure. The primary objective of C&I personnel policies is to help faculty retain reappointment and gain tenure and promotion. The various procedures and policies need to be carefully assessed and followed to be successfully reappointed, tenured and promoted. Faculty themselves need to be proactive and successful in their teaching, scholarship/research, and service to the department, COE, University, and the professional community. All tenured faculty will share responsibility for and take an active collaborative role in evaluating members of their department or college. What follows are the basic guidelines for C&I personnel policies and procedures.

REVIEW TERMS AND TIMELINES

HARP Reappointment Terms

Reappointment reviews for a term-appointed Assistant Professor occur according to this timeline:

In the third year of service, departments may recommend reappointing candidates to a one-year term, instead of two years, as a means of providing further guidance to the candidate. In that case, during the candidate’s fourth year of service, s/he shall be reviewed for the 6^th-year reappointment. In addition to these formal reviews, candidates are encouraged to seek regular input from their departmental colleagues.

If a term-appointed faculty member is initially appointed by Fredonia as Associate Professor, Professor, Associate Librarian, or Librarian, this timeline for reviews is in effect:

Timeline based on prior service

According to the Policies, term-appointed faculty may request up to three years of credit toward review for continuing appointment, based on satisfactory full-time prior service in academic rank at another accredited institution of higher education (see Policies XI.B.3.d). Within one month of the initial appointment, eligible term faculty may request Prior Service Credit by submitting a completed form10 to the office of Human Resources. Once eligibility is confirmed, the Director of Human Resources forwards the verified document to the appropriate dean, who recommends to the Provost the number of years (0-3) of Prior Service Credit. The Provost notifies the faculty member of the approved number of years credit and sends a copy of the adjusted timeline for review to the chair, dean, President, and Director of Human Resources.

Modified Reappointment Timelines

Please refer to HARP for information on Modified Reappointment Timelines (HARP III.B.)

HARP Annual Timelines for Faculty Reviews for Reappointment, Continuing Appointment and Promotion

Timeline for Reappointment Review in the First Year of Service:

December 1: Candidate submits the Reappointment Statement and current curriculum vitae (described in II.D.1.a) to the department Chair or the Chair of the Library Faculty for review by the DPC or LPC.

December 15: DPC submits recommendation, signed ballots, and reappointment statement to the department Chair and candidate. The candidate has five working days to appeal to the Chair.
LPC submits recommendation, signed ballots, and reappointment statement to the Chair of the Library Faculty and candidate. The candidate has five working days to appeal to the Chair of the Library Faculty.

January 15: Chair submits recommendation, signed ballots, and reappointment statement to the Dean with a copy of the recommendation to the candidate. The candidate has five working days to appeal to the Dean.
Library Faculty Chair submits recommendation, signed ballots, and reappointment statement to the Library Director with a copy of the recommendation to the candidate. The candidate has five working days to appeal to the Library Director.

February 1: Dean submits recommendation, signed ballots, and reappointment statement to the Provost with a copy of the recommendation to the candidate. The candidate has five working days to appeal to the Provost.
Library Director submits recommendation, signed ballots, and reappointment statement to the Provost with a copy of the recommendation to the candidate. The candidate has five working days to appeal to the Provost.

February 15: Provost submits recommendation, signed ballots, and reappointment statement to the President with a copy of the recommendation to the candidate. The candidate has five working days to appeal to the President.

March 15: President notifies candidate of reappointment decision with a copy to the Provost/Vice President, Dean, Director, Chair, and Human Resources.

Timeline for Reappointment Review after the First Year of Service:

August 20: Faculty on the tenure-track prior to 9/1/2013 shall notify Chair in writing of their intent to use pre-HARP or HARP guidelines and timelines.

September 1: Chair submits to Dean or Library Director any proposed alternative structure of the DPC.

September 15: Dean or Library Director, after consultation with the Provost, approves or amends the proposed alternative and sends a letter to the candidate, Chair, and Provost.

October 1: Candidate submits dossier to the department Chair or the Chair of the Library Faculty for review by the DPC or LPC.

November 1: DPC submits recommendation, signed ballots, and dossier to the department Chair and candidate. The candidate has five working days to appeal to the Chair.
LPC submits recommendation, signed ballots, and dossier to the Chair of the Library Faculty and candidate. The candidate has five working days to appeal to the Chair of the Library Faculty.

November 15: Chair submits recommendation, signed ballots, and dossier to the Dean with a copy of the recommendation to the candidate. The candidate has five working days to appeal to the Dean.
Library Faculty Chair submits recommendation, signed ballots, and dossier to the Library Director with a copy of the recommendation to the candidate. The candidate has five working days to appeal to the Library Director.

December 15: Dean submits recommendation, signed ballots, and dossier to the Provost with a copy of the recommendation to the candidate. The candidate has five working days to appeal to the Provost.
Library Director submits recommendation, signed ballots, and dossier to the Provost with a copy of the recommendation to the candidate. The candidate has five working days to appeal to the Provost.

February 15: Provost submits recommendation, signed ballots, and dossier to President with a copy of the recommendation to the candidate. The candidate has five working days to appeal to the President.

March 15: President notifies candidate of reappointment decision with a copy to the Provost/Vice President, Dean, Director, Chair, and Human Resources.

Timeline for Continuing Appointment and Promotion Review Processes

August 20: Faculty on the tenure-track prior to 9/1/2013 shall notify Chair in writing of their intent to use pre-HARP or HARP guidelines and timelines for continuing appointment or promotion to Associate Professor.
Faculty shall notify Chair of intent to submit dossier for promotion to Professor.

September 1: Chair submits to Dean or Library Director any proposed alternative structure of the DPC.

September 15: Dean or Library Director, after consultation with the Provost, approves or amends the proposed alternative and sends a letter to the candidate, Chair, and Provost.

October 1: Candidate submits dossier to the department Chair or the Chair of the Library Faculty for review by the DPC or LPC.
The UUP Chapter President and the Provost appoint the nine academic employees to the APC.

November 1: DPC submits recommendation, signed ballots and dossier to the department Chair and candidate. The candidate has five working days to appeal to the Chair.
LPC submits recommendation, signed ballots and dossier to the Chair of the Library Faculty and candidate. The candidate has five working days to appeal to the Chair of the Library Faculty.

November 15: Chair submits recommendation, signed ballots, and dossier to the Dean with a copy of the recommendation to the candidate. The candidate has five working days to appeal to the Dean.
Library Faculty Chair submits recommendation, signed ballots, and dossier to the Library Director and candidate. The candidate has five working days to appeal to the Library Director.

December 15: Dean submits recommendation, signed ballots, and dossier to the Provost and candidate. The candidate has five working days to appeal to the Provost.
Library Director submits recommendation, signed ballots, and dossier to the Provost and candidate. The candidate has five working days to appeal to the Provost.

December 20: The recommendations, signed ballots, and dossier are available for review by the APC.

February 15: Chair of the APC submits recommendations, signed ballots, and dossier to the Provost with a copy of the recommendation to the candidate. The candidate has five working days to appeal to the Provost.

April 15: Provost submits recommendation, signed ballots, and dossier to the President with a copy of the recommendation to the candidate. The candidate has five working days to appeal to the President.

May 15: President notifies the candidate of continuing appointment and promotion decisions with a copy Provost/Vice President, Dean, Director, Chair, and Human Resources, and submits recommendations on continuing appointment to the Chancellor of the State University of New York.

Fall: Chancellor notifies the candidate of continuing appointment decision.

DEPARTMENTAL PROCEDURES

Curriculum & Instruction Personnel Committee Membership

1. All faculty members in the department of Curriculum & Instruction, who hold continuing appointment serve on the C&I Personnel Committee for reappointment review, excluding the department Chair person and those UUP-represented members serving in an administrative assignment of more than 50% of their professional obligation.

2. All faculty members in the department of Curriculum & Instruction who are at or above the rank under consideration serve on the C&I Personnel Committee for promotion review excluding the department Chair person and those UUP-represented members serving in an administrative assignment of more than 50% of their professional obligation.

3. Candidates shall not be reviewed by anyone who has any of the following relationships with the candidate: a tenured faculty member who is a member of the candidate’s immediate family; a tenured faculty member who is a candidate’s partner in an external business; and/or a tenured faculty member who is an intimate partner with the candidate (current or past).

4. Tenured faculty members who are on sabbatical leave may participate in the process and vote, as long as that person reviews the candidate’s dossier and is at or above the rank of the person under review.

5. If there are not at least three people in Curriculum & Instruction available at the required rank, the department Chairperson, in consultation with the members of the C&I Personnel Committee, shall select an appropriate alternative from another department. The selection of the alternative(s) is submitted to the Dean for approval by September 1.

Candidate Performance Review Scales (CPRS) Decision-Making Guidelines

• For reappointment, faculty members must achieve a record of Competence (3-4) in all three areas of review (i.e., teaching, scholarly ability, and professional service).

• For promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor with tenure, faculty members must achieve a record of Competence in all three areas of review (i.e., teaching, scholarly ability, and professional service) and a consistent record of Achievement in at least 2 of the three areas.

• For promotion from Associate to Full Professor, faculty members must achieve a record of Achievement in all three areas of review (i.e., teaching, scholarly ability, and professional service) and a consistent record of Achievement with Distinction in at least 2 of the three areas.

Curriculum & Instruction Personnel Committee Procedures

1. In August of each year, the Curriculum & Instruction Personnel Committee convenes to elect a Personnel Committee Chair. The departmental Chairperson will announce the results of this election to the entire department. The Personnel Committee Chair is responsible for calling meetings, collecting ballots, and summarizing Personnel Committee activities and recommendations.

2. In September of each year, the department Chairperson provides the Personnel Committee members with the names and timelines of candidates under review during the current academic year.

3. Prior to October 1, the Chair of the Personnel Committee announces to the Personnel Committee the review period and meeting schedule for each candidate under review according to the established timeline. Individual Personnel Committee meetings will be scheduled by the Personnel Committee Chair—one meeting for each candidate under review. Although meetings are independent, they may be scheduled consecutively.

4. Prior to October 1, the Department Chairperson announces the composition of each candidate’s C&I Personnel Committee to the C&I faculty.

5. Faculty candidates up for review submit materials (1st-year reappointment statements as per HARP guidelines or subsequent year dossiers) to the Chairperson by the deadline in the established review timeline. The Chairperson electronically announces the availability of the materials for review.

6. All C&I Personnel Committee members who meet the aforementioned qualifications to serve on a candidate’s review committee shall (a) independently review the reappointment statement or dossier and (b) complete an individual Candidate Performance Review Scales (CPRS). The candidate’s most recent recommendation letters from the C&I Personnel Committee, the C&I Chairperson, the COE Dean, the Provost and the President shall be available for review by committee members.

7. Each Personnel Committee member: (a) brings the CPRS to the Personnel Committee meeting; (b) participates in deliberation; and subsequently (c) completes a written ballot for each personnel action under consideration (reappointment or tenure and/or promotion). The ballots have the following options: Strongly Recommend; Recommend; Recommend with Reservation; Do Not Recommend. Each ballot includes commentary on the decision. All ballots are signed and become part of the record available to the candidate and subsequent reviewers.

8. The Personnel Committee Chair collects ballots and CPRS data from each member of the Personnel Committee and, in the form of a cover letter, summarizes the actions of the Personnel Committee.

9. The Personnel Committee Chair forwards the cover letter, ballots and CPRS data to the Department Chair according to the established timeline.

10. The Personnel Committee Chair provides copies of the cover letter, ballots and CPRS data to the candidate under review according to the established timeline.

11. Candidates who wish to comment on the letter, ballots or CPRS ratings must do so in writing to the Department Chair within five working days of receipt of the materials.

Curriculum & Instruction Department Chairperson Recommendation Guidelines
(Approved by the Department of Curriculum & Instruction on February 21, 2018)

Part One: Eligibility for Nominating and Voting

1. 1. Eligibility. All tenured, tenure-track and full-time term-appointed contingent faculty members, including the current Department Chairperson, are eligible to nominate individuals for Chair and to vote in the Chair selection process. This includes tenured faculty members on sabbatical leave.

   2. Absentee Voting. An absent eligible voter may vote by communicating his or her preference (via email at least six hours in advance of the Departmental election) to the Department Personnel Committee member designated by the DPC to serve as Election Chair.

   3. Quorum. At least two-thirds of the eligible voters are required for a quorum.

Part Two: Eligibility for Chair

1. 1. Eligibility. Any tenured or tenure-track faculty member shall be eligible to be chair.

   2. Term Limits. A chair may not serve more than two consecutive three-year terms, unless no other eligible department member desires to serve in the chair position. After a chair serves two terms and steps down from the position, he or she is ineligible for two terms unless there is unanimous approval by the other department members.

Part Three: Nomination and Voting Procedures

1. 1. Election Chair. In August of the final year of the current Department Chair’s term, the DPC shall select an Election Chair from its members. The Election Chair shall be a faculty member who does not intend to seek nomination for Chair. The Department and Dean shall be informed of the name of the Election Chair via email by September 1st.

   2. Current Chair. On or before September 15th of the final year of the current Department Chair’s term, the current Chair shall report his or her intention to seek another term via email to the Election Chair. On or before September 20th of the final year of the current Department Chair’s term, the Election Chair shall report the decision of the current Chair to the Department and Dean via email.

   3. Nominations. The Election Chair will accept nominations for Department Chair via email beginning on September 20th and ending on October 20th. The Election Chair will verify eligibility of nominees and contact nominees to confirm acceptance of nomination. On or before October 31st, the Election Chair will announce the names of all nominees via email to the eligible voters and the Dean.

   4. Open Session. At least one week prior to the election, the Election Chair will schedule a 1-hour open session to allow eligible voters to consult with nominees. The date and time of the election shall be announced at or before the Open Session.

Part Four: Election and Reporting Procedures

1. 1. Election. The Election Chair shall run the Department Chair election on or before November 15th. The election shall be conducted via paper ballot at a meeting of the eligible voting faculty. Votes are confidential. A quorum is required and shall include in-person and electronic ballots.

   2. Election Results. The Election Chair will report the results of the election to the Department and Dean within 24 hours of the election. The report will include the names of all nominees and the number of votes received by each. The person who wins the election is the one who receives more votes than any other candidate. In the event of a tie, the Election Chair will hold a run-off election between the top two candidates.

Part Five: Administration

After appropriate consultation with the Department, and after receiving the results of the Departmental election for chair nominee, the Dean shall make a recommendation for chair to the Provost. The Dean shall share that recommendation with the Department. The Provost may consult with the Dean and/or the Department before making a recommendation to the President. The Provost shall share that recommendation with the Department. The President may consult with the Provost, Dean, and/or the Department before appointing the chair.

If the Dean’s recommendation for chair is contrary to the Department’s vote, the Department may appeal in writing to the Provost within 5 business days after the Dean’s recommendation is made. If the Provost’s recommendation for chair is contrary to the Department’s vote, the Department may appeal in writing to the President within 5 business days after the Provost’s recommendation is made. The President’s decision may not be appealed.

Review of Adjuncts: HARP 2017 Guidelines with Emphasis on Personnel ResponsibilitiesAs stated in HARP:

V.F. Contingent Faculty Hiring Procedures

Prior to filling a vacancy with an external applicant, Chairs are expected to communicate course staffing needs to all members of the department, including those appointed in the most recent two semesters, and to consider their qualifications. Current part-time contingent faculty interested in teaching in other Fredonia departments are encouraged to apply directly to that department’s continuous recruitment posting using Fredonia’s applicant tracking system (i.e., Interview Exchange).

V.H.2. Full-Time Contingent Faculty

The Chair, in consultation with the current DPC Chair, shall identify an appropriate review committee to evaluate the qualifications of candidates for full-time contingent faculty vacancies. This committee shall make recommendations to the Chair on the appointment of all new full-time contingent faculty. The Chair then makes a recommendation to the Dean. In emergency situations that preclude formal consultation, Chairs shall gain permission from the Dean to seek input from available faculty with expertise in the area to be hired and shall document and report their actions and decisions to the DPC and the Dean. The Chair completes a Request to Hire requisition in the applicant tracking system, and forwards it to the Dean’s Office and Human Resources for approval. Upon approval by the Dean’s Office and Human Resources, the Chair may extend an offer to the applicant

V.I. Review of Contingent Faculty

The purpose of contingent faculty review is to provide collegial feedback recognizing good work and to offer suggestions for continuous improvement. Regular review of teaching and learning effectiveness helps the university to maintain focus on excellent instruction. Temporary appointed Adjunct Lecturers and Lecturers shall be reviewed at least once per year. Upon achieving term appointment, all Adjunct Lecturers, Lecturers, and Senior Lecturers shall be reviewed at least once within a three year period. By September 15, Human Resources shall compile and distribute a master spreadsheet of contingent faculty review cycles to the Deans and department Chairs. By April 15, department Chairs shall complete the review process, as described in Section V.J. Section IV.A.1 of this Handbook, on Teaching and Learning, states “. . . all faculty are expected to be regularly engaged in practices that encourage and support student learning.” Departments, knowing their disciplines and departmental culture, may include in their handbooks specific criteria for effective teaching in that field. These are the general criteria for all contingent faculty reviews: ● effectiveness in teaching and learning, demonstrated through multiple measures (not only the student survey/evaluation); ● participation in department assessment and accreditation activities; ● understanding of the contingent faculty member’s course within the curriculum and of shared pedagogies, approaches, or priorities; and ● effectiveness in carrying out other responsibilities (i.e., service, advising, grant activity, etc.) as defined by the appointment letter.

V.J. Contingent Faculty Review Process

The department Chair is responsible for ensuring that reviews are conducted according to the provisions of this Handbook. As part of the review, the Chair or his/her departmental designee(s) (a tenured faculty member including tenured faculty in other departments or in administration) will observe each contingent faculty member in the classroom, lab, or studio.18 By October 1 (Fall semester), or February 15 (Spring semester), the Department Chair notifies the contingent faculty member that they will be observed and who will be conducting the observation. For online courses, observation shall consist of limited guest access to the course’s learning management system for a mutually agreed-upon span of time no longer than two weeks. The Chair or designee will send review comments on the observation to the faculty member within two weeks of the date of observation. The faculty member will acknowledge receipt by signing and returning the observation form to the Chair or designee, and may submit a response if s/he desires. Sample Classroom Observation forms (i.e. Pre-Visit Questionnaire19, Classroom Observation Feedback Form20, and Classroom Observation Post-Visit Questionnaire21) are included in Appendix L-N. Following the observation, the Chair schedules a meeting with the contingent faculty member to discuss teaching effectiveness, including perceived strengths and areas for improvement. The basis of the conversation may include the following items if available to the Chair through departmental recordkeeping: ● a syllabus from each course being taught; ● student evaluations from courses taught in the previous semester; ● annual report(s); ● classroom teaching observation commentary from the Chair or his/her designee, and a response from the faculty member, if one was submitted.

The faculty member: ● should provide an example of how the faculty member assesses student learning in each course (e.g., exam, paper, assignment); ● may provide a self-evaluation of teaching, other examples of teaching effectiveness, and campus and community contributions (if not already included in annual report). Following the review meeting, and no later than December 15 (Fall) or May 1 (Spring), the department Chair shall write a review letter that addresses the general criteria for contingent faculty review in Section V.I, including the results of the review meeting. This letter shall be shared with the contingent faculty member in writing, and signed by the Chair and the faculty member, with a copy forwarded to the contingent faculty member and the Dean, as well as a copy of the signed observation letter. The Dean shall forward these materials to Human Resources to be placed in the contingent faculty member’s Official Personnel File (OPF) and for revision of the master spreadsheet. The faculty member may submit a written response to the Dean to the review document within two weeks of receipt of the Chair’s review letter, with a copy to Human Resources to be placed in the OPF.

V.L.3. Procedure for the Selection of the Senior Lecturer Award

Application for the award title of Senior Lecturer may occur no earlier than the sixth year of full-time contingent employment. The candidate for the title award of Senior Lecturer shall prepare and submit a portfolio of materials to the Chair by February 15 for review by the Department Personnel Committee (DPC), Chair, Dean, and Provost, with the final decision resting with the President. Senior Lecturer title awards are not reviewed by the Academic Personnel Committee (APC). The portfolio shall include, at minimum, the same documents required during the contingent faculty review process. Notification of decision will be provided by May 15. An unsuccessful nomination for the award title of Senior Lecturer shall have no bearing on the status or reappointment as Lecturer, or future consideration for the award title of Senior Lecturer.

CANDIDATE PERFORMANCE REVIEW SCALES

Candidate Performance Review Scales (CPRS) Decision-Making Guidelines

• For reappointment, faculty members must achieve a record of Competence (3-4) in all three areas of review (i.e., teaching, scholarly ability, and professional service).

• For promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor with tenure, faculty members must achieve a record of Competence in all three areas of review (i.e., teaching, scholarly ability, and professional service) and a consistent record of Achievement in at least 2 of the three areas.

• For promotion from Associate to Full Professor, faculty members must achieve a record of Achievement in all three areas of review (i.e., teaching, scholarly ability, and professional service) and a consistent record of Achievement with Distinction in at least 2 of the three areas.

General Recommendations for Promotion to the Rank of Associate Professor

Promotion to associate professor requires both a high and a consistent level of performance on all of the Trustees' Policies criteria. Evaluation and recommendation for promotion to associate professor and for continuing appointment will normally take place within the same cycle of faculty, departmental, and administrative considerations. Although the Trustees' Policies do not permit continuing appointment being made contingent upon promotion to associate professor, or vice versa, a recommendation for one substantially reinforces a recommendation for the other. 

Teaching

The person's teacher effectiveness dossier evidences continued excellence in the classroom in the rank of assistant professor. This is to be done in the following ways:

1. By demonstrating that courses taught are in a continuous state of development and reflect extensive and current resources. 
2. By undertaking successfully new course assignments; by designing, developing, and successfully teaching new courses not previously part of a department's offerings; and by participating successfully in the college-wide instruction programs. 
3. By providing whole-class student evaluations of teaching effectiveness in a variety of courses over a reasonable period of time since appointment or promotion to the rank of assistant professor. 
4. By confirmation of teaching excellence by departmental colleagues who are directly familiar with the person's work. 
5. By demonstrating consistent and successful involvement with independent studies, research projects, final major student works, and/or theses.

Scholarship, Research, and Creative Activity

The person has advanced significantly in the area of scholarship beyond the level of assistant professor. This progress is demonstrated by providing the following evidence:

1. Scholarly/creative work or performance record beyond that demonstrated for the terminal degree. (There should be evidence that the person promoted to the rank of associate professor has completed substantial work in new or continuing investigations that demonstrate a cohesive line of thought in the discipline.) 
2. Scholarship, creative works, and performance record (documented through reviews) should be national in scope. (Reputation of the journals, sources of reviews, and extent of the performance record will be an important consideration.) 
3. Significant work/research conducted, but not yet published, can also be provided at this stage of professional development. (The significance of the creative research/work should be attested to by reputable and established individuals in the field. It is important in these cases to attain a number of objective evaluations that testify to the quality and the value of the research, product, or performance.) 
4. Invitations (particularly if unsolicited) to give readings, presentations, exhibitions, demonstrations, or workshops at major conferences, institutes, or universities should also be included. 
5. Grants, awards, and particularly the quality of the works resulting from them are important for promotion to associate professor.

Public, University, and Professional Service

The person ought to be able to demonstrate excellence on a continuous basis in the area of service during the period of tenure as assistant professor. This is demonstrated by providing the following evidence:

1. Increased administrative responsibilities and major leadership roles. (The important point is that the assistant professor has consistently played an active and constructive role in departmental meetings and committees and in college-wide service, including academic advisement, recruiting, and in student service activities. 
2. Substantive letters of recommendation which cite and describe the success of specific contributions in providing initiative and direction in committee efforts. 
3. Active role in the resolution of issues in professional and/or community organizations.

General Recommendations for Promotion to Rank of Professor

The promotion to professor should signal maturity and demonstrated excellence as scholar, teacher, and contributing member of the department, college and University. Promotion to professor demands substantial and sustained growth and evidence of contributions beyond the level upon which promotion to associate professor was based. There are no hard and fast rules for time in rank or promotion to the next higher rank, and faculty may apply for promotion at any time. 

Teaching

The person must demonstrate continued excellence in the classroom in the rank of associate professor. This is to be done in the following ways:

1. By demonstrating that the courses taught are in a continuous state of development and provide students with extensive resources.

2. By undertaking successfully new course assignments and by designing, developing, and successfully teaching new courses not previously part of curricular offerings.

3. By providing whole-class evaluations in a variety of courses since promotion to the rank of associate professor.

4. Confirmation of teaching excellence by departmental colleagues who are directly familiar with the person's work.

5. Evidence of a major contribution to the department or college-wide instructional program.

6. External assessment/reviews of student accomplishments/creative works which have a direct link to the faculty member.

Scholarship, Research, and Creative Activity

Accomplishment in this area should be significantly greater than was expected to achieve the rank of associate professor. There should be evidence of new and more sophisticated levels of achievement. Successful research has led by now to publication or creative work which has been subject to further review. Furthermore, the significance of the person's accomplishment is attested to by peers and reputable figures in the field away from campus.

1. Recognition of the quality of the work (publications, works of art, or performance record) should be made evident and available in the form of reviews, comments, and citations in the works of others; direct letters of assessment by recognized authorities off campus solicited by the department and by the candidate; and such evidence as invitations from leaders in the field to contribute to publications, conferences, and exhibitions, to serve on editorial boards, to review books, etc. (Reputation of the place—journal, gallery, theatre—in which the articles, research projects, poems, short stories, works, etc., have appeared will be an important consideration, as will the publishers or sponsors.)

2. Honors or awards serve to recognize the person's contributions for long-term work in the field and/or new interpretations and applications of research.

Public, University, and Professional Service

Accomplishment in this area should be significantly greater than was expected to achieve the rank of associate professor. Not only has the person consistently played a constructive role in departmental meetings, committee, academic advisement, and in college-wide faculty governance since the last promotion, he or she is now accepting leadership roles in the department, the college, and the profession. This is demonstrated by providing the following evidence:

1. Increased complexity in administrative duties. (For example, the person has chaired a variety of committees, both inside and outside the department.)

2. The excellence of his or her contributions to the committees is testified to by colleagues and can be illustrated in tangible ways.

3. The work/product of the committees is exemplary and significant to the college or organization.

As a general guideline, promotion from associate to professor could come as quickly as four or five years after promotion for the most exceptional faculty, i.e., those who are clearly outstanding on all promotional criteria. Most associate professors should aspire to and seek promotion to full professorial status from six to ten years after their promotion to associate status. Those associate professors whose further growth is undistinguished or poorly balanced (i.e., very strong on some promotional criteria but undistinguished on others) may expect to serve longer as associate professor before promotion to professor. Some associate professors can be expected never to become professors.

TEACHING

Teaching is a fundamental faculty responsibility. Teaching encompasses not only classroom instruction, but such activities as clinical supervision, advising, mentoring, and service on graduate committees and projects. Teaching effectiveness should be documented with student evaluations (SIRS and/or formative measures). Additional documentation might include: (a) evidence of pedagogical innovations, (be) measured improvements in subject mastery by students, (c) special teaching awards/recognition and (d) peer reviews of teaching.

COMPETENCE

1. High level of subject matter knowledge and mastery of course content
2. Technical proficiency
3. Rigorous preparation for the semester and for each individual class
4. Evidence of high level of scholarly course content, rigor, and fairness in grading, and effective teaching skills
5. Evidence instructor defines expectations, supplies timely evaluations to students, and reports on student progress
6. Evidence of effective student advisement
7. Evidence of significant contributions to the education of graduate students

ACHIEVEMENT/ACHIEVEMENT WITH DISTINCTION CONFIRM WITH DEPARTMENT CHAIR

1. high level of subject matter knowledge and mastery of course content

2. evidence of high level of scholarly course, rigor and fairness in grading, and effective instructional skills

3. technical proficiency: Ability to organize and sequence course lessons; organize individual lessons; communicate expectations/objectives to students, deliver subject matter clearly, concisely, and with an appropriate amount of repetition

4. Evidence that indicates that students perceive that instructor promotes growth in student interest, abilities, learning, and understanding

5. Evidence that students perceive instructor’s interest and commitment to subject matter

   (AT LEAST TWO OF THE FOLLOWING)

6. Development of pedagogical methods and materials that demonstrate a significant impact on learning

7. Significant contributions to major curriculum changes, course/program development, and other instructional programs

8. Generation of significant grants and/or the securing of resources to support institutional mission

9. Contributions to teaching as a science and art through paper presentations, journal articles, and book chapters on teaching and its improvements

RESEARCH/SCHOLARSHIP

Listed below are examples of activities that meet the criteria for performance evaluations of Achievement with Distinction, Achievement, and Competence, in the areas of Research/Scholarship. This list is not exhaustive! Other activities may be judged by Peer Review Committee as befitting one of the categories.

COMPETENCE

1. Book or chapter in progress
2. Paper(s) presented at a local meeting, or state or regional conference
3. Paper(s) submitted to journals
4. Paper(s) in progress
5. Research in progress
6. Technical report (unpublished) and/or non-refereed journal article
7. Grant submitted (evidence of substantial effort)
8. University grant

ACHIEVEMENT

1. Small grant ($10,000 or less) from external funding agency
2. Publication in 2nd tier*, refereed journal
3. Invited chapter in book
4. Paper or symposium presentation at national or international conference
5. Invited lectures/presentations at national/international conferences
6. Invited reviewer for book, book chapter(s) or refereed journal articles
7. Invited for review panel for major professional conference
8. Citation of work in dissertation technical report, or non-refereed article

ACHIEVEMENT WITH DISTINCTION

1. Publication in first tier*, refereed journals
2. Member of Editorial Board for refereed journals
3. Author or co-author of book, or 1st tier* published monograph
4. Invited chapter in book from recognized publishers
5. Principal investigator/co-investigator on major grant from external funding agency
6. Editor of national/regional journal
7. Editor of book (in print or press)
8. Citation of work in published article (refereed journal) or book
9. Nationally recognized contribution in electronic media

SERVICE

Indicators of Competence, Achievement, and Achievement with Distinction for Service are listed below. It should be noted that the indicators on each list are examples of activities that meet the criteria for inclusion in the category. The lists are not exhaustive! Other activities may be judged by the Peer Review Committee as meeting the requirements for a given category of performance. In addition to the activities listed below, service includes consultation, products developed for a variety of media/technology, performances/products/services for the arts, professional reviewing activities, inservice activities, service related grants or acquisition of resources. Activities should be appropriately documented.

COMPETENCE

1. University
   1. Serves on and contributes to Departmental Committees
   2. Contributes to area program of study
   3. Invited class presentations
2. Professional
   1. Belongs to professional organizations
   2. Attends local meetings
   3. Contributes to local program of work
   4. Invited talks & presentations at professional groups
3. Community/State/National/International
   1. Contributes to the community well-being or fulfills a need which goes beyond self-interest

ACHIEVEMENT

1. University
   1. Has role of responsibility within Department (chairs committee)
   2. Serves on and contributes to College or University Committees
   3. Represents University at community level
2. Professional
   1. Attends state meetings of professional organizations
   2. Active in state organizations or contributes substantially to state work policy-making/professional literature.
3. Community/State/National/International
   1. In the area of one's professional expertise, contributes to the resolution of a problem at the local level
   2. Serves on a state policy-making or advisory board

ACHIEVEMENT WITH DISTINCTION

1. University
   1. Has role of responsibility at University level (chairs committees)
   2. Represents University at State level
   3. Works on University-wide projects
   4. Provides statewide or regional training
2. Professional
   1. Attends national meetings & holds national office or contributes substantially to national work
   2. Chair or program chair of state organization
3. Community/State/National/International
   
   1. In the area of one's professional expertise, contributes to the resolution of a problem at the state or national level
   2. Serves on national policy-making and/or advisory board