PROMOTION AND/OR TENURE: POLICIES AND PROCEDURES UMKC SCHOOL OF EDUCATION Approved: School of Education Faculty May, 1999 (Revised: Nov. 17, 2000, September 19, 2008) The following guidelines outlining criteria, policies, and procedures for promotion and tenure are based upon UMKC policies and procedures as found in Chancellor’s Memorandum #35. This document (Chancellor’s Memorandum #35) is included as an appendix to this School of Education document. Candidates for promotion and tenure, as well as members of the School of Education Promotion and Tenure Committee, should familiarize themselves with these documents. I. CRITERIA FOR TENURE AND PROMOTION TO ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR Tenure and promotion decisions are consistently based on the three categories of professorial work: teaching, research and service. Consistent with Chancellor’s Memorandum #35, teaching and scholarship are the primary criteria for promotion and tenure. Service to the profession, to the university and units, as well as to schools and communities is expected of every faculty member, but shall not substitute for teaching and research. The School of Education is committed to the integration of teaching, research, and service and, with this, understanding an overall profile of a faculty member’s work is of major importance. The weighting of these three factors may vary depending on assigned responsibilities within the School. School of Education policy indicates that typical weighting will be 45% teaching, 35% research, 10% service, and 10% at the discretion of the faculty member (with approval by the chair). Each individual faculty member’s assigned responsibilities will be documented and included in the candidate’s portfolio. The criteria described below are not to be considered all‐inclusive lists, nor is there an absolute number of the items which need to be met. Evaluation of a candidate involves qualitative and quantitative judgments. Teaching It is expected that candidates for promotion and tenure demonstrate quality teaching ability and sustained efforts at development. Teaching activities include courses taught, either credit or non‐credit, on or off campus, including continuing education; projects or activities accomplished for schools, professional agencies, or professional organizations where the intent is to assist that group to improve their professional skills; and the mentoring of peers and students related to teaching. The teaching activities of all faculty members are evaluated each year. The School of Education Faculty Accomplishment System is the primary mechanism through which teaching accomplishments may be made visible. The assessment of teaching shall include, but not be limited to School of Education approved course evaluation data, and a self‐evaluation of student ratings. Candidates are expected to demonstrate, in a qualitative fashion, satisfactory teaching expertise through the materials they present in their portfolios. In addition to student evaluations, evidence of good teaching may be demonstrated through any of the following: • open‐ended chairperson and/or personal teaching evaluation data • unsolicited letters concerning teaching • peer review of teaching with candidate’s response to review and personal analysis of teaching • student interviews conducted by a peer • evidence of having developed new courses and contributed significantly to program development (peer review of syllabi and program development efforts are encouraged) September 2008 1
• peer review of exams and other assessments • evidence of mentoring students through such efforts as independent study, assisting students to participate in professional activities, assisting students in the development of scholarship • evidence of mentoring peers through such efforts as assisting with ongoing School developmental efforts (i.e. creating/maintaining faculty resources, creating/maintaining faculty professional development) • evidence of innovative use of technology • other evidence of teaching development over time Scholarship It is expected that candidates for promotion and tenure demonstrate sustained and consistent efforts and contributions to their discipline through scholarly activities reflected in national and international peer‐reviewed publications and presentations. Scholarship in the School of Education includes educational scholarship and research translated for practice. Practitioner‐related activities that represent significant scholarship are considered as appropriate scholarly activities. Such practitioner‐related scholarship may include: 1. the creation of theory and research relevant to educational practice; 2. the translation of new or existing theory and research into appropriate forms, materials, or instruments in order to make such scholarly work accessible to educational practitioners. In reviewing scholarly productivity, quality must be foremost, although quantity may be a consideration. Documentation of research activities should include some evidence that the research has had a reasonable impact upon the field. To be considered for promotion to associate professor, the candidate should have completed work of sufficient quality to have gained recognition by her/his peers and standing in her/his profession. 1. Publications– a required part of an applicant’s portfolio is evidence of publication. Such evidence may include: • Articles published or accepted in refereed journals or practitioner oriented journals. A letter of acceptance shall serve as evidence if the article has been accepted but not yet published. The School of Education encourages collaborative scholarship and therefore articles may be co‐authored or single authored. Co‐authored articles should be accompanied by a short narrative defining the candidate’s substantive contribution to the work. • Authorship or editorship of an appropriate book or educational text. • Scholarly monographs, chapters, or essays in educationally appropriate books. 2. Additional evidence of scholarship may include: • Editorship of a national or international professional journal. • The development and publication of a peer‐reviewed case study for teaching purposes. • The development of educationally related computer technology or software. Candidates must provide information about the use of such products in the field. • Editorship of professional association research‐based newsletters. September 2008 2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The development of educationally‐related products or programs to be used in conjunction with communication technologies other than traditional print medium. Candidates must provide information about the use of such products in the field. Receipt of national or international scholarly award, recognition, or fellowship. Publication of peer‐reviewed teaching materials. Publication of peer‐reviewed evaluation/assessment instruments or comparable tools. Significant involvement as chair or active committee member in five or more doctoral dissertations. Candidates involved as committee members must provide a short narrative describing the nature of their involvement and contribution. Demonstration of successful grantsmanship. Peer‐reviewed presentations of research at a national or international conference or professional association meeting. The directing of substantive, longitudinal research requiring annual reports and grant‐related monographs. Candidates should submit copies of such reports and monographs, as well as information about the distribution of those materials and/or future publication plans for them. Evidence of applied scholarship via consulting or public service that results in a demonstrable impact on the larger community or discipline. Election to an office in a national learned society. Work on editorial boards of national research journals. Service The School of Education places great importance on service in schools, communities, and professional associations, and recognizes the potential positive impact of these service activities on research and teaching. However, service cannot replace demonstrated quality in both teaching and research. Service activities can include: 1. Service to the University and its units such as: • active participation in School and University committees • service as division chair, program director, or in other essential capacities • representing the School and/or University at ongoing state meetings 2. Active participation in School/community partnerships and outreach such as: • coordinating and/or serving on the steering committee for a School–University or community–University partnership • provision of professional inservice and consulting • significant work in the development of off‐campus programs 3. Work with local, state, and national professional educational organizations such as: • serving on a board of directors • serving as an officer • significant committee work September 2008 3
II. PROCEDURES FOR APPLICATION FOR TENURE I. Probationary Periods Probationary (untenured/ tenure track) candidates receive mandatory review for tenure according to the following schedule: Rank when applying for Tenure Probationary Period Mandatory Review Preparation Assistant Professor Seven Years Sixth Year Fifth Year Associate Professor Five Years Fourth Year Third Year II. Monitoring yearly progress The decision to grant tenure dictates a careful annual review during the probationary period, as well as policies to provide assistance and support. All faculty members should receive all copies of evaluations of their teaching, research, and service, including year‐end evaluation reports. Candidates for tenure and/or promotion should include copies of these reports in their portfolios. A. Responsibilities of Division/Department Chair Faculty will receive a written evaluation from their Division/Department Chair (P&T Annual Evaluation) and have the opportunity to provide written dissent. Both the evaluation and the rebuttal will become part of the faculty member’s personnel record, copies of which will be given to the faculty member. These are to be included in the candidate’s portfolio when applying for promotion and/or tenure. B. Responsibilities of the School of Education Promotion and Tenure Committee The School of Education Promotion and Tenure Committee will annually review and evaluate the activities of probationary faculty and will include procedures for assisting faculty in their professional development. The Promotion and Tenure Committee ensures that all annual evaluations and evaluations by the Division Chair and P & T Committee will be used as the basis for assisting candidates in their professional development. Promotion and Tenure Annual evaluations and a description of professional development efforts will be included in the tenure portfolio. C. Responsibilities of the Dean The Dean will review activities and evaluations and provide written feedback each year to probationary faculty. These documents will also be included in the candidate’s portfolio. The Dean will provide oversight to mentoring and development activities. III. Application for Tenure Formal notification of mandatory tenure review of probationary candidates will be initiated by the Office of the Provost and transmitted to the School of Education. Notification is made to the candidate through the Dean’s Office to allow adequate time for portfolio preparation and review. A. Responsibilities of the Faculty Member 1. Upon notification by the Dean’s Office, submission of an application for promotion and/or tenure is primarily the responsibility of the faculty member. September 2008 4
Properly completed application for promotion and/or tenure includes: a. A completed copy of the University form, “Recommendation for Tenure and/or Promotion Beyond Assistant Professor, Part I” b. Supporting documentation, such as various evaluation forms for student evaluation of teaching; articles, chapters, monographs; reviews of books and other published materials; evidence of committee participation; examples of learning materials developed, etc. c. Letters of support from divisional/departmental peers d. Completed Annual P&T Review documentation e. A complete Curriculum Vitae It is the responsibility of the faculty member to organize the material in one (three‐ring binder) portfolio formatted to see that it is neatly typed and presented in an organized fashion and to meet the deadlines outlined in this document. One reasonable format for organization is to parallel the required categories of Teaching, Research and Service in the Recommended Format for Promotion and Tenure Portfolios form as provided by the Office of the Provost. 2. The faculty member and her/his Division Chair will submit to the Dean a (both paper and electronic) list of at least eight external reviewers from nationally and internationally known institutions who may be asked to evaluate the candidate’s portfolio. Additional names for potential evaluators may be added to the candidate's list by the Dean. The most appropriate letters of evaluation are those written by disinterested experts nationally recognized for their own achievement. The candidate is not to include any co‐investigators, Ph.D. mentors, ex‐colleagues, etc. in the proposed evaluation list as detailed in the Promotion & Tenure External Evaluator Disclosure and Approval Form provided by the Office of the Provost. 3. The faculty member will also compile condensed portfolios for external evaluators as detailed in the Application for Promotion and Tenure: Responsibilities of Mandatory Tenure Candidate instructions B. Responsibilities of the Division/Department Chair 1. Identification of appropriate persons who may be contacted for external peer review, in consultation with the faculty member. (See above concerning impartial evaluators.) Names and addresses of persons identified are to be forwarded to the Dean by the “due date” established by the Dean’s Office. 2. Review the assembled materials and ensure that sufficient documentation has been provided. 3. Carefully complete Part II of the Recommendation for Tenure and/or Promotion Beyond Assistant Professor form. 4. Send a memo to all tenured members of the Division/Department who are the same or higher rank as the candidate, notifying them of their opportunity to provide written and signed comments to the named chair of the Promotion & Tenure Committee regarding the candidate being considered. September 2008 5
C. Responsibilities of the Promotion and Tenure Committee 1. Review the final portfolio to determine whether documented evidence of stated teaching, research, and service activities is included and whether it adequately reflects candidate’s contributions in these areas. This includes the replies from external reviewers and other evaluative comments in the portfolio. 2. Make a carefully prepared appraisal/evaluative written statement and append it to the portfolio. According to Chancellor’s Memorandum #35, some of the questions to be answered by the Promotion and Tenure committee are: a. Is the candidate qualified to be promoted or to be placed on continuous appointment? b. If more than one person is being considered for a single position, is the candidate under review the best qualified among those being considered to fill this tenured position? c. Is the recommended action in the best interests of the University of Missouri? 3. The P&T Committee will notify the faculty member, Division Chair, and the Dean in writing, of the recommendation and rationale of the Committee. 4. All vote tallies, recommendations and documentation including appeals and resulting changes of recommendation, if any, are to be completed and added to the final portfolio. The portfolio is then forwarded to the Dean on or before the “due date” specified in the annual “Promotion and Continuous Academic Appointment Calendar.” 5. In the event of a negative or split decision by the committee, the individual and the division/department chair shall be immediately notified in writing of the adverse vote. The individual will be given a reasonable time (not to exceed fourteen calendar days) both to submit a written rebuttal and to have an opportunity to appear before the committee. The P&T Committee will also complete Part Two if there is a difference between their recommendation and that of the Division Chair. The committee’s subsequent decision will be forwarded to the Dean as its final recommendation. Written rebuttal received from the faculty member and/or the chairperson will be forwarded with this recommendation. D. Responsibilities of the School of Education Dean 1. The Dean provides guidance in writing to the faculty member during each year of the probationary period. 2. External evaluations are conducted by the Dean. The Dean shall: a. Initiate the external review by obtaining approval of the proposed evaluators from the Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs and select three to five experts from the approved list of external evaluators. External evaluators should be competent in the candidate’s field and have academic appointments in recognized and at least comparable universities and must hold at least the same rank/tenure being considered. b. Provide external reviewers a review package that includes UMKC tenure/promotion criteria (Chancellor’s Memorandum #35) and Part I of Application for Promotion and Tenure, as well as a complete set of data on the candidate’s teaching, research, and service; external reviewers are asked whether the candidate would receive tenure/promotion at their university. September 2008 6
c. The Dean may seek and obtain appraisals and evaluations of the candidate’s competencies relative to the external reviewer’s institution, as well as UMKC. d. Ensure that all materials submitted by external evaluators are available for review by the Division Chair and the P&T Committee. 3. Submit her/his recommendation and all others to the Campus Promotion and Tenure Committee. Any and all documentation, including rebuttals, appeals, and additional materials shall be included in the portfolio and forwarded to the next level of review. a. In the event of a negative decision by the Dean, the candidate shall be notified in writing advising him/her that a tentative negative decision has been made and allow him/her an opportunity to submit a written appeal or rebuttal and to supplement the dossier (portfolio) with current information relative to the negative decision. Appeal or rebuttal information must be received in the Dean’s Office within fourteen calendar days of the candidate receiving the notification. i. If circumstances warrant it, the Dean may revise her/his recommendation. If the Dean’s decision remains negative at this level then the candidate must be informed of the appeal process to the Chancellor. IV. Guidelines for Awarding the Academic Rank of Professor A person recommended for promotion to the rank of professor should have significant accomplishments especially in the area of research and scholarly activity, beyond those justifying the rank of associate professor. Years of service alone do not justify advancement. Rather, sustained contributions during a career to research, scholarship, and teaching are necessary. A person being considered for full professor should be a scholar who has achieved national distinction in the areas of research and scholarly activities. The following may be used as evidence of national distinction: 1. publications in journals where expert evaluation is required 2. favorable review of books 3. appointments or awards that require evaluation of professional competence 4. election to offices in learned societies 5. receipt of fellowships 6. significant citations 7. sustained history of publications in the top journals in a field and/or with a nationally‐known press 8. favorable reviews of published works beyond books 9. competitive awards of major federal or national foundation grants 10. editorship of a national or international journal 11. invited membership on editorial review boards (especially for top scholarly journals and presses in a field) 12. favorable reviews and/or documented widespread use of published evaluation instruments, teaching materials and methods, educational software, and other products, consistent with the School of Education 13. involvement in collaborative research/consortium projects with nationally prominent institutions, agencies, or contributors to a field 14. membership on national/international advisory boards, review teams, or projects of distinction This is not to be considered as an all inclusive list, nor is there an absolute number of the above items which September 2008 7
need to be met. Meeting these criteria does not guarantee the award of full Professorial rank. Evaluation of a candidate involves qualitative and quantitative judgments. Promotion and Tenure Time Table (Consult with the Dean's Office for exact dates as they may change on an annual basis) Approximate Dates: April Dean (prompted by Provost) notifies faculty members who require mandatory decision in upcoming academic year and requests declaration at this time from faculty members who want to be considered for promotion to full professor. May 15 Candidate and her/his Division Chair submit a (paper and electronic) list of at least eight (8) external evaluators to the Dean. May Dean forwards final list of external evaluators to the Provost for approval. May 31 Candidate provides the required number of copies (5) of his/her condensed portfolio (Including Part I form) for external evaluators to the Dean or designee as detailed in the Application for Promotion and Tenure: Responsibilities of Mandatory Tenure Candidate instructions July 31 Candidates submit complete P&T Portfolio to Dean’s Office Sept. 1 Promotion and Tenure Committee reviews the candidate(s) complete portfolio. October Promotion and Tenure Committee sends letters to candidates and a copy to the Dean along with vote tallies advising them of its recommendation. In the event of a negative recommendation, the candidate may submit a written appeal or rebuttal within fourteen calendar days to the P&T Committee for consideration. October Appeals to Promotion and Tenure Committee and the Committee’s final recommendation along with vote tallies are forwarded to the Dean upon receiving an appeal or any new data within the allotted fourteen calendar days. If no appeal or new data is received, the Committee’s recommendation becomes final. Oct. 31 Dean’s tentative decision. If a negative decision is made, Dean sends written notification to candidate advising her/him that a tentative negative decision has been made, and allow the candidate an opportunity to submit a written appeal or rebuttal within fourteen calendar days for consideration. In cases, where negative decisions have been made by the Dean and, after ample time for appeal at that level, these negative decisions are forwarded to the Campus Promotion and Tenure Committee. December Dean submits final recommendations with appropriate documentation to the Provost and notifies candidate of final recommendation. The candidate shall be given the opportunity to review his/her portfolio before it is sent to the Provost. However, the candidate should not review confidential external evaluator letters. September 2008 8
March April May September 2008 Campus Committee on Promotion and Tenure completes its review. Provost makes her/his recommendation to the Chancellor. Chancellor makes final decisions and notifies candidates and Deans. 9