June 2014
DEPARTMENT OF PLANT PATHOLOGY
ANNUAL EVALUATION GUIDELINES
(Approved by Faculty Vote on 30 June 2014)
PROMOTION AND TENURE GUIDELINES
(Approved by Faculty Vote on 30 June 2014)
REVIEW DATE FOR ANNUAL EVALUATION GUIDELINES *(WHICH INCLUDES THE
CHRONIC LOW ACHIEVEMENT STATEMENT AND THE PROFESSORIAL
PERFORMANCE AWARD): June 2019
REVIEW DATE FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE GUIDELINES*: June 2019
John Leslie, Department Head
Date signed: 30 June 2014
John D. Floros, Dean
Date signed: 0-29- IS241)
LA r-b` (4),.\\N-5
April Mason, Provost
Date signed: 5
15- ato--<-4-1_ drhaL.A0)-
*Each academic department is required by University Handbook policy to develop department documents containing criteria, standards, and guidelines for promotion, tenure, reappointment, annual evaluation and merit salary
allocation. These documents must be approved by a majority vote of the faculty members in the department, by the
department head or chair, by the dean concerned, and by the provost. In accordance with University Handbook
policy, provision must be made to review these documents at least once every five years or more frequently if it is
determined to be necessary. Dates of revision (or the vote to continue without revision) must appear on the first
page of the document.
June 2014
FACULTY EVALUATION:
PROCEDURES, CRITERIA, AND STANDARDS FOR ANNUAL MERIT
EVALUATION, PROMOTION, TENURE, AND MID-TENURE REVIEW,
AND PROFESSORIAL AWARDS
Department of Plant Pathology
Kansas State University
First ratified 24 September 2004, by faculty vote, and modified and approved by faculty vote on
24 October 2008, and 9 December 2013, and 30 June 2014.
I. Introduction
Every December, each faculty member prepares and submits documentation (see section X) for
the Annual Performance Evaluation. The three main objectives of the evaluation are: (i) aid in
faculty goal setting; (ii) provide feedback to assist in professional development; and (iii) provide
a ranking that can be used to determine annual merit salary increases. The intent of the process is
to provide both documentation and quantification of each faculty member's performance, and an
assessment of the quality of the performance and contribution of the faculty member performance
to the Department, University, and discipline (national and international).
The Annual Progress Report is composed of specific information relative to faculty activities in
Teaching, Research, Extension, and Service. The assignment of tenths to each area is negotiated
annually with the Department Head. Each faculty member's tenths must sum to ten (for a fulltime appointment for 9 or 12 months) or to the number of formal tenths of appointment for parttime faculty. Each member of the faculty is expected to provide Service, which is evaluated as
part of the Department Head's evaluation. Greater Service leads to a higher Service tenths assignment (maximum of 25%), which factors into the computation of certain Rankings detailed below.
The Final Score of the evaluation is composed of two components. The first component is the
summation of the quantifiable contributions in the three areas, Teaching, Research and Extension,
based on weighting and adjustments described below. The second component is a subjective evaluation by the Department Head. Each component accounts for 50% of the Final Score for the
Annual Performance Evaluation. All final summary performance ratings are adjusted to a scale of
0 to 5 where 5 is the highest (best) performance.
II. Proportionality
Each faculty member has tenths assignments (negotiated annually with the Head) for Teaching,
Research, Service, and Extension, which may differ from the official budgeted tenths. Activities
are weighted according to the tenths assigned in each area of responsibility. Proportionally less
productivity is expected for faculty with less than 10 tenths assignment in a given area. Differences
are adjusted by dividing an individual's quantitative scores by the decimal equivalent of the assignment of that individual in the category being evaluated. As an example, someone with 10
tenths research may have a publication output of 50 per evaluation period and receive a rating of
June 2014
5 (Excellent). Someone with 5 tenths research with a publication output of 25 per evaluation
period would have an adjusted score of 25 ÷ 0.5 (assignment) = 50 and also receive a rating of 5.
III. Subjectivity
In addition to the objective standards listed under each area of evaluation (Teaching, Research,
Extension), subjective elements are included in Teaching and Department Head Evaluation. Faculty members have the responsibility to document to the Head (in the Annual Faculty Progress
Report) any activities they have performed during the past three years to be considered in evaluating the subjective elements. Service activities are included in the subjective elements. The Head
evaluation score for Teaching is a subjective score assigned by the Department Head after evaluation of the course material and classroom observation.
IV. Multiple year averages
Total yearly performance output is based on a three-year rolling average for the Research, Extension, and Service areas. For the Teaching area, evaluations usually are based on a four year rolling
average. In this context, evaluations will be based on at least the last two times a faculty member
taught a course, whether or not it was the same course, if a person has a one-tenth teaching assignment, or on the last four times a person taught a course if the teaching assignment is two tenths or
more. A course is defined as a "traditional" course offered for two credits or more with an enrollment equivalent to six or more undergraduate students or three or more graduate students and
excludes such courses as seminar, research and most problems-type courses.
-
V. Weighting and calculations
Within each Performance area (Teaching, Research, Extension) certain quantitative measures are
grouped into categories, as shown in the tables below for each area. Performance ratings within
each rated area are obtained by multiplying the rating score (0 thru 5) of a category within an area
by its weight. These weighted scores are added together for all categories within an area to obtain
a Scaled Score for the area. As an example, for the Teaching area: Scaled Score = (Student evaluation rating x 0.50) + (Head evaluation rating x 0.50). The Scaled Score is adjusted by the negotiated tenths assignment to give the Ranking Score.
As an example: Assume a faculty member has negotiated with the Head an assignment of 10%
Teaching, 70% Research, 20% Service. The 70% Research efforts are used to determine the Adjusted Scores in those areas by dividing quantitative Research Productivity (publications, funding,
and presentations) by 0.7. Those Adjusted Scores are then placed on a 0-5 scale, relative to the
department maximums, and a Scaled Score is determined for each area. For example, assume the
faculty member received Scaled Scores of 3.85 for teaching and 3.60 for research. Only Teaching
and Research are evaluated, so Service is removed to determine the Adjusted Effort. The Adjusted Effort for teaching is 12.5% [10%/(10% + 70%)] (proportion = 0.125) and the Adjusted
Effort for Research is 87.5% Research [70%/(10% + 70%)] (proportion = 0.875). The Ranking
Score is calculated by weighting based on the proportional Adjusted Effort multiplied by the
Scaled Score for the corresponding area. In this case, the Ranking Score = (0.125 x 3.85) + (0.875
x 3.60) = 3.63. In this example, a 70% assignment was used to obtain scores when evaluating
June 2014
Research to determine the Adjusted Score and Scaled Score, but an 87.5% Research assignment
was used to calculate the Ranking Score.
VI. Head evaluation
The evaluation by the Department Head will constitute one half of the Final Score. This Head
Evaluation Score will be based on a 5 point scale. The Head will consider subjective areas such
as improvement, service, awards, and other activities that may not be quantitative. The Head may
adjust their evaluation based upon the perceived collegiality of the faculty member. Collegiality
is defined as a cooperative relationship among colleagues. While academic freedom and the right
to free speech are endorsed by the department, these must be exercised with an attitude of courtesy,
respect, and graciousness. The Head Evaluation Score is added to the Ranking Score and the total
is multiplied by 0.5 to give the Final Score. (Note that Teaching has an additional subjective Head
evaluation component that is distinct from the Head Evaluation Score.)
VII. Evaluation summaries and annual Merit Salary Adjustments
Activities for each faculty member are reviewed and summarized by the Department Head, and
individual Performance Evaluation Summaries are arranged and conducted in January. The Summary includes numerical ratings describing faculty performance in relevant categories and areas
of assignment. A summary narrative also is prepared by the Department Head, describing the overall performance, strengths, and deficiencies in the performance in each area of assignment. The
Performance Evaluation Summary is presented in draft form to the faculty member for examination. Each faculty member has the opportunity to meet with the Department Head to discuss their
performance and impediments, if any exist, that have prevented them from obtaining their goals.
These meetings are mandatory for Assistant and Associate Professors. Faculty are encouraged to
discuss concerns or possible corrections to their Summary during these meetings. The faculty
member and Department Head sign the final document indicating they have seen the document,
which is then forwarded to the Dean. The faculty member may submit a written statement describing unresolved differences regarding his/her evaluation to the head to be attached to the evaluation and forwarded to the Dean.
The Final Score for a faculty member is used to categorize their performance. The Final
Scores of the faculty will be used to place them into the following groups: "Fails to Meet Expectations", "Below Expectations", "Meets Expectations", "Exceeds Expectations" and "Greatly Exceeds Expectations". The distribution of faculty amongst the groups and the final ranking of faculty within the groups, if any, is determined by the Head. The percentage salary increases recommended for persons in the Greatly Exceeds Expectations category will be higher than those for the
Exceeds Expectations category, which in turn shall exceed those in the Meets Expectations category, which will exceed those in the Below Expectations category. Those in the "Fails to Meet
Expectations" will receive the lowest salary increase in the department, and will not exceed 1%.
VIII. Assignment of Teaching Tenths
June 2014
All faculty with appointments containing Teaching tenths are expected to teach a minimum of two
courses in a four-year period. An individual with a one tenth Teaching appointment will teach, on
the average, three credit hours of courses (or more) per two-year period. In this context, a course
is defined as a "traditional" course offered for two credits or more with an enrollment equivalent
to six or more undergraduate students or two or more graduate students and excludes such courses
as Research, and most Special Topics and Problems-type courses. Courses with a laboratory component or with a large enrollment (>20) may receive increased teaching credit (negotiated with the
head).
IX. Assignment of Service Tenths
Service assignment is based upon calendar year activity but uses a three-year rolling average. In
general, one-half day of activity per normal work week is considered one tenth of service time. Note:
the maximum Service Tenths for which credit can be received is 2.5 (except in unusual circumstances
such as election as the president of a professional society). The table below may be used as a guideline for requesting service tenths, but it is understood that the final assignment is made by the Department Head.
Activity
Senior editor
Associate editor
Membership on minor committee
Membership on major committee
Chair of minor committee
Chair of major committee
Manuscripts reviewed (outside department)
Grants reviewed (outside department)
Member of grant review panel
International consulting
Departmental review team
Tenths
Up to 2.0
Up to 0.3
0.05
Up to 0.2
Up to 0.2
Up to 1.0
0.015
0.015
Up to 1.0
Up to 1.0
Up to 1.0
Other activities can count toward the Service assignment (e. g. , teaching the Seminar class or serving as an officer in a professional society); these need to be negotiated with the department head.
X. Required documents for the Annual Performance Evaluation
The documentation submitted for the Annual Performance Evaluation includes:
Up to four quantitative evaluation forms. One each for Extension, Research, Service and Teaching, depending upon appointment.
Two or three qualitative documents:
• Career Accomplishments and Highlights (1 page maximum). What are you best known for?
• Progress towards your goals for the previous year (1 page maximum for combined old goals
and progress towards them), and upcoming calendar year goals (no more than 2 or 3 goals and
no more than 0.5 pages)
June 2014
• (Optional —1 page maximum) Moderating conditions that could be factored into the subjective
Head evaluation score(s). Include any activities performed, extenuating circumstances, or otherwise, during the past three years (identified by year) to be considered in the evaluation if
these activities do not already appear in the above quantitative or qualitative documents.
Copies of TEVAL summaries (numerical) and student comments for traditional courses taught
during the previous year (including the current Fall semester, when they become available).
And one of two documents:
1. Faculty with extension responsibilities must submit an impact report.
2. All other faculty should be a PI or co-PI on a CRIS project and should submit their CRIS
project summary for the past year. Their impact should be recorded on the corresponding
CRIS project summary, whether they were the lead PI or not. (Note: Current AES expectations are that all faculty with > 0.5 formal research tenths will have their own CRIS project, so most faculty should have their own CRIS project and be preparing their own CRIS
report).
June 2014
Categories and Standards for Evaluating Teaching
Weight
(%)
Category
Standards
Rating
50
Student evaluations. (TEVAL I ; average of the scores for questions numbered 1 & 14). If a TEVAL score is not
submitted, then a value of 2.0 will be
inferred as a default.
TEVAL score taken directly as standard.
x 0.50
=
50
Head evaluation of teaching. Based
on one or more of the following; but,
not limited to these items:
Subjective
x 0.50
—
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Class syllabus, handouts & exams
Peer review of classroom teaching
TA and GRA Student Training
Teaching improvement activities
Undergraduate student advising
Teaching publications and presentations
Extramural Teaching funds
Teaching awards and honors
Guest lectures
Student interviews
'Adjusted TEVAL scores will be used which have corrections for student motivation and class
size.
June 2014
Categories and Standards for Evaluating Research
Weight
(%)
Standards
(for 100% Research) 1
Category
Rating
60
Publications.
refereed article 2 = 1,
patent filed or provisional patent received3 = 1,
germplasm = 1,
book = 3,
book chapter or editor = 1,
Plant Disease Management Reports =
0.25,
non-refereed article = 0.1;
adjusted for tenths research assignment
50 is set equal to 5; others taken as proportion of
that.
x 0.60
=
30
Funding.4
Extramural (grant dollars received; adjusted for tenths research assignment)
$2,400,000 is set equal to
5; others taken as proportion of that.
x 0.30
=
10
Presentations of research information.
(number of symposia, seminars, abstracts; adjusted for tenths research assignment)
100 is set equal to 5; others taken as proportion of
that.
x 0.10
'If a score exceeds a maximum numerical standard, then the score for that subcategory is
5.00.
articles in Cell, Nature, Science, PNAS and journals with an impact factor > 10
(documentation provided by faculty member) count as two.
2 Refereed
3 The
4 For
patent does not count again if it is issued or subdivided.
the purpose of calculating extramural dollars received from grants that include multiple PIs
in the Plant Pathology department, the dollars incoming to the department are divided equally
among the faculty member PIs and co-PIs in the department.
June 2014
Categories and Standards for Evaluating Extension
Standards
(for 100% Extension)
Weight
Category
60
Publications, presentations, educational materials 1 '2
Numbered extension publication =
1; Trade article = 0.2; KSRE Extension article (newsletter or equivalent) = 0.1; Major Report = 1.0;
Speaker at extension meeting, field
day, or plot tour = 0.2; Web page =
2.0; Newspaper/radio/TV interview
= 0.05
90 is set equal to 5; others
taken as a proportion of
that.3
(The maximum for this category may be adjusted by
the head after two years to
reflect differences in overall
scores due to the new scoring system).
x 0.6 =
40
Peer evaluations by agents and
specialists4
Based on quantitative survey responses regarding but not limited to
the following:
quality of presentations to general
audiences, quality of presentations
to extension audiences, quality and
timeliness of responses to questions/inquiries, quality and timeliness of sample diagnostics, quality
of written and graphical information (newsletters, blog posts, social media, etc.).
1-5 scale
x 0.4 =
Rating
1 Descriptions
•
of materials
Numbered Extension publications = lead or co-author of an official KSRE publication.
•
Trade articles = author of an article in a print or electronic trade or popular press publication.
•
KSRE article = author of print or e-newsletters or equivalents (a substantial post on FaceBook, for example, that could serve as a stand-alone article). Online material must be
archived or otherwise accessible/available to allow verification. Duplicate publication of
the same material in multiple locations will only be counted once. If the different publications are in different categories, then the faculty member may choose the category in which
the publication is to be counted.
June 2014
•
Major report = This category could include a comprehensive report of diagnostic laboratory
activities, GPDN documentation/accreditation reports, etc.
•
Web page = primary responsibility for building and maintaining structure and content.
•
Newspaper/radio/TV/trade publication interviews, including working with K-State Marketing and Communications for K-State press releases.
2 Quantitative
items tabulated for consideration in the subjective evaluation by the Department
Head may include the number of samples diagnosed and the number of field diagnoses performed.
3 If
a score exceeds 90, then the score for this subcategory is 5.00.
4 Each
Extension faculty member will provide annually to the head a list of ten names of potential
reviewers, such as county extension agents, state extension specialists, regulatory officials, etc.,
who have not been used as reviewers in the previous two years. Reviewers will provide information translated to a quantitative score. In addition, open-ended comments by reviewers will be
taken into consideration for the Head's subjective score.
June 2014
PROMOTION AND TENURE GUIDELINES
These guidelines are not intended to supersede or replace the requirements listed in the Faculty
Handbook.
1. Expectations of faculty for tenure, promotion, and beyond will depend upon the specific
assignment.
General expectations for faculty are listed below; these are to be considered guidelines, not as
contractual. All faculty are expected to:
• Contribute regularly to the teaching program
• Develop and publish scholarly materials in an appropriate forum on a regular basis
• Be "good citizens" of the department
All faculty at the rank of Assistant Professor and above are expected to:
• Be a member of the Graduate Faculty
• Contribute to graduate student training
• Guide graduate students as major professor and serve on other graduate student committees
• Obtain extra-mural funding to partially support their programs.
2. Minimum expectations of faculty
Faculty in the Department of Plant Pathology have determined that selected key indicators can be
used to measure expectations of their programs. For research, external grant funding and publications in refereed journals fairly summarizes the quality, quantity, and reputation of their work. For
teaching, student evaluations, as measured by the TEVAL score, indicates quality of instruction,
and numbers of courses taught measures quantity. For Extension, County extension agents and
peer specialists are most familiar with the quality, quantity, and reputation of their work and can
evaluate those parameters.
For all faculty, set the minimum research expectation as:
• Significant extramural grant funding, i.e. from outside K-State or the Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station, as a P.I. or co-P.I. to support their research program or at least annual applications to an appropriate agency for such funding.
• Total number of refereed journal articles published over the past 4 years, modifying for teaching and Extension responsibilities:
6 refereed journal articles if 0 courses taught;
5 refereed journal articles if 1 course taught;
4 refereed journal articles if 2 or 3 courses taught;
3 refereed journal articles if 4 or 5 courses taught, or if Research is 36-50% of appointment;
2 refereed journal articles if 6 or 7 courses taught, or if Research is 21-35% of appointment;
1 refereed journal article if 8 or more courses taught, or if Research is < 20% of appointment.
For faculty with a 50% or larger Extension appointment), set the minimum extension expectation
at an average score of 3.0 (on a scale of 1-5, with 5 as best) on the annual agent/peer evaluation of
June 2014
their performance.
For primarily-research faculty, set the minimum teaching expectation as one 2-3 credit course
taught every other year (with 1 additional course every two years for each tenth teaching appointment beyond 0.1), with TEVAL scores averaging 3.0 (on a scale of 1-5, with 5 as best) over the
four-year period. Classes that do not fill for reasons beyond the control of the instructor will be
given special consideration. The 5-6 article publication expectations outlined above will apply if
the faculty member misses teaching a course or two, even for circumstances beyond his/her control. "Courses taught" refers to formal courses of at least 2 credit hours with at least two graduate
students or at least six undergraduates; it does not include seminar, problems, or research, but may
include formal courses taught as topics (as negotiated with the head).
In keeping with the intent of the Board of Regents, we add the statement that failure to meet minimum expectations in any one category of the appointment constitutes failure to meet the requirements of the position and may be considered a basis for review that may lead to dismissal of the
tenured faculty member.
3. Annual reappointments during probationary period
Each tenure-track, non-tenured faculty member will be evaluated each year, usually in August, by
the review eligible faculty — Associate Professors, Professors, Research Associate Professors, Research Professors, Adjunct Associate Professors, and Adjunct Professors — in the Department to
determine the progress being made towards promotion to Associate Professor with tenure. Research, Teaching, and Extension outputs will be reviewed, depending upon assignment. Items to
be considered may include publications, grants, courses taught/initiated, student evaluations, agent
evaluations, presentations to various groups, etc. No external reference letters will be solicited for
these reviews.
Following a discussion, with time for reflection (at least one day after the discussion), each review
eligible faculty member will be asked to vote by ballot on reappointment, and to provide written
comments. The results of the vote and anonymous faculty comments will be transmitted to the
Dean along with a separate recommendation from the Department Head.
Following the vote of the review eligible faculty, the Department Head will prepare a letter containing a summary of the discussion, the anonymous faculty comments and the vote. He/she will
meet with the faculty member to review the letter, the faculty discussion and comments, the vote,
and the recommendation to the Dean (with appropriate safeguards for confidentiality). The letter
to the faculty member will be copied to all review eligible faculty and to the Dean.
4. Mid-Tenure Review
During the third year of appointment, each tenure-track, non-tenured faculty member will be reviewed in the same format as used for tenure consideration, at the same time as tenure decisions
are made (usually in October-November). Outside references for this review will be obtained at
the discretion of the head following consultation with Associate Professors and Professors in the
June 2014
department. Based on this documentation, the faculty will recommend, by ballot, non-reappointment or reappointment based on satisfactory progress toward tenure. Faculty must supply anonymous comments to support their vote for or against reappointment. Research, teaching and extension outputs, a summary of service contributions, and the results of the faculty evaluation will be
submitted to the Dean for consideration. A letter will be prepared by the Department Head for the
faculty member that will provide substantive feedback from faculty colleagues and administrators
regarding his or her accomplishments relative to departmental tenure criteria.
5. Tenure review
Review for tenure will most commonly occur during the sixth year of appointment.
Unusual circumstances will be handled on an individual basis, such as might occur when a person
being considered for tenure was hired at the level of Associate Professor.
In addition to the evaluation materials required by College and University guidelines, the candidate
will provide a list of ten names of potential referees from outside the department, with at least eight
from outside the university. From these names, the head will solicit at least five written tenure
evaluations. The head will solicit an additional five external reviews from individuals of his/her
choice. The candidate is generally expected to present a seminar to document their achievements
in research, teaching, and/or extension. Using College and University guidelines, the candidate
will be evaluated in the Department by all tenured faculty. Tenured faculty will discuss the evaluation materials at a meeting with the head, will conduct a written vote, and will provide written
comments supporting their individual decisions to recommend/not recommend tenure for the candidate. This meeting may be the same as that at which promotion to Associate Professor is discussed. The head will summarize the vote and the discussion in a written evaluation to the Dean,
which will include his/her own recommendation. If the candidate is applying for tenure and promotion at the same time, then only a single letter need be prepared by the head.
6. Promotion to Associate Professor
Based on current policy, it is expected that a recommendation for tenure will be accompanied by
a recommendation for promotion to Associate Professor. At the level of the Dean and Provost,
faculty who are considered to be not qualified for concurrent promotion to Associate Professor
usually will be considered to not be qualified for tenure. Adjunct Associate and Full Professors
and Research Associate and Full Professors are allowed to vote for promotion to Associate Professor, but are not allowed to vote for tenure. Eligible faculty will discuss the evaluation materials
at a meeting with the head, will conduct a written vote, and will provide written comments supporting their individual decisions to recommend/not recommend promotion for the candidate. This
meeting may be the same as that at which tenure is discussed. The head will summarize the vote
and the discussion in a written evaluation to the Dean, which will include his/her own recommendation.
Areas and criteria (as applicable to appointment) used to evaluate faculty for this promotion are:
• Demonstrated satisfactory ability in Teaching including: student and peer evaluations; development and/or improvement of course material (syllabi, handouts, exams, etc.); and other
Teaching-related activities (such as Teaching improvement activities, training TAs, Teaching
June 2014
•
•
•
publications, extramural Teaching funds, Teaching awards, guest lectures, etc.).
Demonstrated satisfactory ability in Research including: publication history; obtaining extramural funds; making presentations; and other Research-related efforts (such as number of proposals prepared, significance of Research findings, training of visiting scientists/postdoctoral
researchers, Research-improvement activities, awards and honors, and participation on graduate student committees).
Demonstrated satisfactory ability in Extension including: quantitative output of Extension
training materials; quality/effort as rated by peer evaluation; and other Extension-related efforts (such as improvement activities, extramural funds for Extension, awards and honors, cooperation, creativity, impact assessment, breadth, Research relevant to Extension duties, Extension lectures, guest lectures).
Demonstrated satisfactory ability in Service including: committee and/or review efforts; and
other Service-related activities (such as involvement in professional and scientific organizations; international activities; departmental leadership, cooperation, initiative, enthusiasm; and
extra Service to the department).
7. Promotion to Professor
Review for promotion to Professor most commonly occurs during the sixth year in rank as an
Associate Professor. As with Assistant Professors, each Associate Professor will be evaluated
each year, usually in August, by the Professors in the Department to determine the progress being
made towards promotion to Professor. Research, Teaching, and Extension outputs will be reviewed, depending upon assignment. Items to be considered may include publications, grants,
courses taught/initiated, student evaluations, agent evaluations, presentations to various groups,
etc. No external reference letters will be solicited for these reviews. Following the faculty discussion, the head will prepare a letter to the faculty member that summarizes the discussion, and is
copied to all Professors and to the Dean.
Promotion to Professor usually means that the faculty member has obtained national or international recognition in their discipline or, such as in the case of Teaching or Extension, has had a
demonstrated and documentable, significant impact on their students or clientele.
Areas and criteria (as applicable to appointment) used to evaluate faculty for this promotion are:
• Demonstrated ability above satisfactory in Teaching including: student evaluations; development and/or improvement of course material (syllabi, handouts, exams, etc.); and other Teaching-related activities (such as Teaching improvement activities, training TAs, Teaching publications, extramural Teaching funds, Teaching awards, guest lectures, etc.).
• Demonstrated ability above satisfactory in Research including: publication history; obtaining
extramural funds; making presentations; and other Research-related efforts (such as number of
proposals prepared, significance of Research findings, training of visiting scientists/postdoctoral researchers, Research-improvement activities, awards and honors, and participation on
graduate student committees).
• Demonstrated ability above satisfactory in Extension including: quantitative output of Extension training materials; quality/effort as rated by peer evaluation; and other Extension-related
efforts (such as improvement activities, extramural funds for Extension, awards and honors,
cooperation, creativity, leadership, impact assessment, breadth, Research relevant to Extension
June 2014
•
duties, Extension lectures, guest lectures).
Demonstrated ability above satisfactory in Service including: committee and/or review efforts
and other Service-related activities (such as involvement in professional and scientific organizations; international activities; departmental leadership, cooperation, initiative, enthusiasm;
and extra Service to the department).
8. Professorial Performance Awards
The intent of this award is to recognize excellence and sustained performance of full professors;
it is not a promotion that all professors will receive after six years in rank. Criteria for a Professorial Performance award include:
• Eligibility for a Professorial Performance Award will begin after six years in rank as a full
professor or six years after the receipt of the last Professorial Performance Award.
• The candidate must show evidence of sustained productivity every year for at least the last
six years.
• The candidate must show productivity and performance comparable to that required above
for promotion to Professor. In the annual evaluation, the candidate must have received either
"Exceeds" or "Greatly Exceeds" expectations in at least two of the five preceding annual
evaluations. The candidate may not have received any ratings of "Below Expectations" or
"Fails to Meet Expectations" in any of the five preceding annual evaluations.
Consideration for Professorial Performance awards occurs during the annual departmental evaluation. Eligible candidates compile and submit a file that documents his/her professional accomplishments for the previous six years according to the same criteria used in annual evaluations.
Depending on the candidate's appointment, materials may include:
• A one-page summary of major achievements during the evaluation period
• A one-page summary of instructional productivity, including courses taught and thesis supervision, in addition to evidence of instructional quality such as ratings
• A one-page statement of research and other creative activities accompanied by a list of publications and a list of funded grants and contracts
• A one-page summary of extension activity providing evidence of productivity, quality, creativity, and originality, accompanied by a list of extension publications, meetings, workshops,
etc.
• A one-page statement of service contributions, including evidence of leadership
• External evaluations of the candidate are not required.
The head will review the material, prepare a written evaluation of the candidates' materials and
make a recommendation for or against the award. A copy of the head's written evaluation and
recommendation will be forwarded to the candidate. The candidate will have an opportunity to
discuss the written evaluation and recommendation with the head before it is submitted to the
Dean. The candidate also may submit a written statement describing unresolved differences regarding his/her evaluation to the head or to the Dean. The recommendation and supporting documentation will be forwarded to the Dean at the same time as the annual evaluations. The submission will include:
• The department head's evaluation and recommendation
• A copy of the candidate's evaluation document used to determine qualification for the award
June 2014
•
•
Documentation establishing that there was an opportunity for the candidate to examine the
written evaluation and recommendation
Any written statement of unresolved differences concerning the evaluation.
Prospective candidates are encouraged to consult with the head to help determine if he/she meets
the minimum criteria. Candidates for professorial performance awards who were denied the award
the previous year are eligible to reapply in the following year.
9. Post-tenure Review
Purpose
The purpose of post-tenure review at Kansas State University is to enhance the continued professional development of tenured faculty. The process is intended to encourage intellectual
vitality and professional proficiency for all members of the faculty throughout their careers, so
they may more effectively fulfill the mission of the university. It also is designed to enhance
public trust in the University by ensuring that the faculty community undertakes regular and
rigorous efforts to hold all of its members accountable to high professional standards.
Kansas State University recognizes that granting tenure to university faculty is vital for the
protection of free inquiry and open intellectual debate. We expressly recognize that nothing
in this policy alters or amends the University's policies regarding removal of tenured faculty
members for cause (which are stipulated in the University Handbook). This policy and any
actions taken under it are separate from and have no bearing on the chronic low achievement
or annual evaluation policies and processes.
The department's policy on post tenure review follows the overarching purpose, principles,
objectives, and procedures in the university policy on post tenure review (see University Handbook, Appendix W), which was approved by Faculty Senate on February 11, 2014."
Faculty to be reviewed
Tenured Professors and Associate Professors are the only faculty subject to the provisions of
this section. Post-tenure review occurs once every six years.
The Department Head's five-year review fulfills this requirement and exempts him/her from
its provisions.
Faculty may be exempted from post—tenure review if in the past six years they have been promoted to Professor, received a Professorial Performance Award, entered into a phased retirement program, or have been recognized as a University Distinguished Professor, University
Distinguished Graduate Faculty member or University Distinguished Teaching Scholar, or
have received an award from a national or international organization for their professional
excellence, e.g., Fellow of a Society such as the American Phytopathological Society, American Society for Agronomy, or the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
June 2014
Review Process
Reviews will be conducted by the Department Head at the beginning of each Academic year,
as necessary. The Head may delegate this responsibility to a committee of three tenured faculty, who would be responsible for all of the reviews that occur in any given year.
The Department Head is responsible for:
• Retaining a record of the reviews conducted in the department,
• Notifying faculty in the summer ahead of the year that they are due for review, and
• Providing faculty with a written summary of the discussion between the faculty member
and the Department Head.
Faculty must submit to the Department Head at least two weeks prior to the scheduled review:
• Copies of the six previous annual evaluations.
• A one page statement of their professional goals for the coming six-year period with a
timeline.
• If one or more annual evaluations were "below expectations" or "fails to meet expectations", a one-page statement outlining steps taken to remedy the problems that led to the
less than satisfactory evaluation.
• Following a meeting between the Department Head and the faculty member, the Department Head will prepare a letter to be signed by both the Head and the Faculty member that
summarizes their discussions and indicates, in brief the faculty member's goals for the
coming six years. If the faculty member disagrees with the content of the letter prepared
by the Head, then they may submit a separate letter to be included with the letter prepared
by the Department Head.
The first faculty to be reviewed under this policy will be reviewed at the beginning of the 20152016 academic year.
10. Criteria for chronic low achievement
In accordance with section C31.5 of the KSU Faculty Handbook (Chronic Low Achievement),
tenured faculty who in any year fail to meet the minimum expectations in research, teaching or
extension, as appropriate, specified in this document, will also fail to achieve the minimal acceptable level of productivity (see section 2 above under Promotion and Tenure). Those who fail to
achieve the minimal level of productivity may be subject to the procedures and criteria in section
C31.5 of the K-State Faculty Handbook. If a tenured faculty member's performance falls below
the departmental standards in any area of responsibility (research, teaching or extension) then the
head will inform the faculty member in writing. After consultation with the faculty member the
head will suggest, in writing, a course of action to improve the performance of the faculty member.
If the faculty member fails to meet the department's minimum expectations in two successive years
or in three years of any five-year period, then "dismissal for cause" may be considered at the
discretion of the Dean.
11. Guidelines for Graduate Faculty Doctoral certification
June 2014
Department faculty hired on the tenure track and continuing tenured or tenure-track faculty who
meet or exceed the minimum acceptable requirement for research may be certified to direct
Ph.D. students.
Faculty who are neither tenured nor on the tenure track must:
• Have terminal degree in Plant Pathology or a related area
• Be an author or a co-author of at least four refereed journal articles in Plant Pathology or a
related area during the last four years.
• Have at least one of the following significant experiences supervising student research:
o Direct supervision of undergraduate student research for at least two years; or
o Service as the major advisor for a M.S. student for at least two years; or
o Service as the major advisor for a M.S. student who has completed their degree; or
o Service on the supervisory committee of a Ph.D. student for at least two years; or
o Service on the supervisory committee of a Ph.D. student who has completed their degree.
12. Promotion of Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct faculty are affiliated with the department to help the department fulfill expectations and
achieve its goals. These individuals may hold positions in government, e.g., USDA, commercial
companies, or research institutes or educational institutions in the United States or elsewhere.
These appointments are open to researchers at the level of Assistant Professor (or its equivalent)
and above. When an individual is appointed it may be as an Adjunct Assistant Professor, Adjunct
Associate Professor or Adjunct Professor.
Promotion from Adjunct Assistant Professor to Adjunct Associate Professor or from Adjunct Associate Professor to Adjunct Professor must be requested by the Adjunct faculty member. The
Adjunct faculty member is expected to provide the standard K-State materials for consideration
for promotion and to usually be at a rank at their home institution that is equivalent to the higher
rank for which they are applying within the department. Items that may be considered in the
evaluation process include all of those used in making decisions on promotion and tenure for regular faculty within the department. Outside reference letters may be solicited by the head at his/her
discretion.
Faculty at or above the rank to which the Adjunct Faculty member is requesting promotion evaluate the submitted materials. This evaluation is made in light of the Adjunct Faculty member's
activities and expectations in his/her regular position and their contributions to the department.
Voting may be by voice vote or paper ballot, at the discretion of the head. The head is responsible
for notifying the Adjunct faculty member of the Department's decision. If the vote is not in favor
of the promotion then the head provides a summary of the information from the faculty meeting
that resulted in the negative decision to the Adjunct faculty member, to the Professors and/or Associate Professors who participated in the decision, and the Dean. Results of a favorable decision
will be conveyed in writing in a letter to the Adjunct Faculty member and copied to the Dean.
13. Promotion of Research Faculty
Research faculty, i.e., Research Assistant Professors, Research Associate Professors and Research
June 2014
Professors, are appointed only after the faculty at or above the desired level have had a chance to
review a c.v. The faculty member to whom the Research Faculty member reports is expected to
make the presentation to the members of the faculty making the decision. Research Faculty may
be elected to membership in the Graduate Faculty.
Promotion from Research Assistant Professor to Research Associate Professor or from Research
Associate Professor to Research Professor must be requested by the Research faculty member and
endorsed by their faculty supervisor. The Research faculty member is expected to provide the
standard K-State materials for consideration for promotion, including presenting a seminar, and to
have been in rank at K-State for at least as long as normally expected for regular faculty members.
Items that may be considered in the evaluation process include all of those used in making decisions on promotion and tenure for regular faculty within the department. Outside reference letters
may be solicited by the head at his/her discretion.
Faculty at or above the rank to which the Research Faculty member is requesting promotion evaluate the submitted materials. This evaluation is made in light of the Research Faculty member's
activities and expectations in his/her regular position. Voting may be by voice vote or paper ballot,
at the discretion of the head. The head is responsible for notifying the Research Faculty member
of the Department's decision. If the vote is not in favor of the promotion then the head provides a
summary of the information from the faculty meeting that resulted in the negative decision to the
Research faculty member, to the Professors and/or Associate Professors who participated in the
decision, and the Dean. Results of a favorable decision are conveyed in writing in a letter to the
Research Faculty member and copied to the Dean and to the Research Faculty member's supervisor.
This document was approved by the Plant Pathology faculty in a vote 30 June 2014.