Governance Document
The Department of
Educational Studies
IV. FACULTY REVIEW
A. Promotion and Tenure
1. Procedure
Procedures for promotion and tenure follow the timeline as adopted from the SOE
procedures (see the SOE Policy Handbook IV.A).
2. The promotion and tenure process advances through the following assessment points
by the recommended dates listed in the text below:
a. Department P&T Committee
b. Department Chair
c. SOE P&T Committee
d. SOE Dean
e. IPFW P&T Committee
f. VCAA
g. Chancellor
3. The Candidate for promotion and/or tenure should notify the department chair of their
intent early enough to allow the case to be submitted to the Department of Educational
Studies by September 1. Candidates are encouraged to begin preparing their case and
seeking external letters of review during the spring semester prior to the submission of
the case in the fall. For guidelines in soliciting external review letters, refer to OAA’s
document titled “Best Practices in External Review Letters.”
4. The department chair will convene a departmental meeting to form a P&T Committee
consisting of all faculty members possessing the same or higher rank to which the
candidate aspires. When necessary, an appropriate committee will be formed for each
candidate seeking promotion and/or tenure in a given academic year. . The department
chair will participate as an ex officio member but may not vote. Enough faculty
members are required to bring the committee to three. If fewer than three persons are
1
eligible to serve on the departmental committee, the Dean appoints faculty member(s)
from other departments who are deemed suitable to serve on the committee. All fulltime, tenure and tenure-track members of the department shall have the opportunity to
review and comment on each case for promotion and tenure.
5. The Department P&T Committee will elect a chair to preside over the P&T meetings,
conduct necessary votes, and report the vote1 in a letter to the department chair by
October 1. The letter approved by the whole committee will include an explanation of
the majority and minority opinion as represented by the vote.
6. The department chair will write a separate evaluation of the candidate. The chair’s
evaluation, along with the Department P&T Committee’s vote and letter of
explanation, will be forwarded to the SOE P&T Committee by October 15.
7. The SOE P&T Committee shall consist of three tenured members possessing the same
or higher rank to which the candidate aspires from Educational Studies and three
tenured members possessing the same or higher rank to which the candidate aspires
from Professional Studies, all elected by the SOE tenure and tenure-track faculty.
When necessary, an appropriate committee will be formed for each candidate seeking
promotion and/or tenure in a given academic year. A Department Chair will not serve
on the SOE P&T Committtee when the candidate is from her/his department. The
SOE Leadership Committee will conduct the election process. Prospective P&T
Committee members may be nominated by others or by themselves. If fewer than
three persons from each department are eligible to serve on the SOE P&T committee,
the Dean will appoint faculty member(s) from other departments who are deemed
suitable to represent the department by serving on the SOE P&T committee. In
addition, the committee will be constituted in such a way that a majority of its voting
members will not have served on the departmental committees.
8. The SOE P&T Committee shall review P&T cases, solicit input from the rest of the
tenured and tenure-track faculty, and vote on the case(s). The vote, plus a letter of
explanation written by the SOE P&T Committee, will be forwarded to the Dean of the
SOE, along with the letter of the department chair, and the vote and letter of the
Department P&T Committee by October 30.
9. The SOE dean will forward an independent evaluation of a P&T case, along with
departmental and school level assessments, to the Campus Promotion and Tenure Sub
Committee before November 12.
B. Promotion and Tenure Guidelines
1
According to Senate Document 88-13, Procedures for Promotion and Tenure, 2.3, “The deliberations of
committees at all levels shall be strictly confidential, and only the chair may communicate a committee’s decision to the
candidate and to the next level. Within the confidential discussions of the committees, each member’s vote on a case
shall be openly declared.” Abstention votes are not allowed.
2
Preamble
Given that the University, the School of Education, and the Department of Educational
Studies are self-governing entities, each full-time faculty member is expected to participate
in the shared responsibilities of such governance. In accepting these responsibilities, each
faculty member will strive to participate fully in the democratic processes that are necessary
if the academic community's core values of teaching, research/scholarship/creative
endeavor, and service are to be realized. By valuing such deliberative aspects of democracy
as conversation, reasoned discourse, and debate, we center our work around professionalism,
fairness, integrity, honesty, and civil respect for one another and other parties, such as
students.
“The central functions of an academic community are learning, teaching, and scholarship.
They must be characterized by reasoned discourse, intellectual honesty, mutual respect, and
openness to constructive change. By accepting membership in this community, an
individual neither surrenders rights nor escapes fundamental responsibilities as a citizen, but
acquires additional rights as well as responsibilities to the entire University community.
They do not require the individual to be passive and silent. They do require recognition of
how easily an academic community can be violated.” (IU Academic Handbook, p.46)
We in the Department of Educational Studies are committed to the School of Education
Conceptual Framework that guides our programs. Although we encourage these attributes
in our students, faculty within the department should also be committed to: 1) fostering a
democratic, just, inclusive learning community among its students, faculty, and staff, and
with all other stakeholders in the educational enterprise; 2) the integration of crucial habits
of mind in all aspects of the teaching/learning process; 3) understanding and encouraging the
use of pedagogy creatively, and thereby ensuring active learning, conceptual understanding,
and meaningful growth; 4) immersing educators in nurturing learning communities that
deepen knowledge, and encourage on-going intellectual, emotional, and personal growth; 5)
encouraging experiences that reflect the diversity of educators, students, and schools into all
aspects of the curriculum, and help educators to assess and reflect their experiences; and 6)
developing leaders within the profession and the community.
This document shall be distributed in writing to each faculty member upon becoming a
member of the SOE faculty. Nothing in this document is to be construed as being in conflict
with the criteria, policies, and procedures governing the reappointment, tenure, and
promotion of faculty as set forth in the relevant documents of Indiana University or with
those of IPFW as defined in OAA Memorandum 04-3 (Guidelines for Reappointment
Review), SD 88-25 (Criteria for Tenure and Promotion), SD 94-3 (Promotion and Tenure
Guidelines), OAA Memorandum 99-1 (Promotion and Tenure Dossier Format Guidelines),
OAA Memorandum 03-2 (Examples for Documenting and Evaluating Teaching), OAA
Memorandum 04-2 (Examples for Documenting and Evaluating Service), OAA
Memorandum 05-6 (Examples for Documenting Research, Scholarship, and Creative
Endeavor).
Faculty involved in the promotion and tenure assessment process will hold individual
recommendations, committee deliberations, decisions, reviews, and voting outcomes in the
strictest confidence.
3
1.
General Definitions
a.
Teaching
Teaching is a multidimensional issue that is fundamental to the mission of the
School of Education. Teaching can no longer be defined only as the
transmission of theoretical and practical knowledge. It also includes a spirit
of scholarly inquiry which leads the teacher to develop and strengthen course
content in the light of developments in the field in order to improve learning.
Effective teachers are co-learners with their students as they investigate and
participate in the teaching-learning process. Teachers develop personal
skills, techniques, and theories to enhance the teaching-learning process
while encouraging the development of them in our students. The effective
teacher continuously engages in learning and continuously engages students
in learning and is also one who guides and inspires students and stimulates
their intellectual interest and enthusiasm.
b.
Research/ Scholarship/Creative Endeavor
Research informs and improves the educational community by generating
and disseminating theoretical and practical knowledge. It can be a systematic
study directed toward more complete scientific knowledge of understanding
of the subject of focus. The scholarship of knowledge integration also
includes empirical, critical, or expressive activity in a variety of areas that
explores the full range of social, cultural, historical, and literary/artistic
pursuits common to the humanities and recognized by scholars in the field.
The effective researcher demonstrates a well-defined agenda. In the School
of Education, co-authored and/or or collaborative projects are viewed as
contributing to the evidence of scholarly productivity and collegiality;
however, faculty are also encouraged to demonstrate their ability to pursue
independent projects.
c.
Service
Although service may be integrated into a candidate’s scholarly activity or
teaching agenda, the definition that follows distinguishes this activity from
teaching and research/scholarship/creative endeavor. Service can be defined
as taking an active role in the department or on campus that includes
leadership activities and experiences. Service to the school/university allows
a faculty member to participate in the governance process and to voice
positions unique to the school of education. Service should advance the
mission of the department and the institution and can also occur at the
community, state, regional, and national levels through contributions to
professional organizations related to the candidate’s area(s) of expertise.
Candidates should come to see their teaching, research/scholarship/creative endeavor and
service activities as inseparable with each logically and appropriately supporting the other.
4
However, it is the responsibility of candidates to clarify and distinguish among these three
categories and to provide their best argument, supported by documentation, that they have
met or exceeded the expected criteria at each decision point (reappointment, promotion and
tenure).
2.
Criteria for Tenure and Promotion
Teaching, research/scholarship/creative endeavor, and service are long-standing
University promotion criteria. A candidate for tenure must show satisfactory
performance in teaching, research/scholarship/creative endeavor, and service while
demonstrating excellence in at least one of these categories is required for
promotion. In all cases, the candidate’s area of excellence must be assessed through
comprehensive and rigorous external peer review. Tenure and promotion are
typically sought at the same time although the awarding of tenure and promotion are
separate decisions. The duration of the probationary period and the time needed to
build a record of teaching, research/scholarship/creative endeavor, and service
meriting promotion to associate professor are equal, and the university can address
the separate decisions simultaneously. Although tenure and promotion are separate
decisions, tenure without promotion will generally not be conferred unless the
candidate provides a strong promise of achieving promotion in rank in the near
future. Promotion to any rank is recognition of achievement since being hired at
IPFW and indicates that the individual is capable of accepting greater responsibilities
and demonstrating accomplishments in the future.
The candidate for tenure must show satisfactory achievement in each of the three
areas of teaching, research/scholarship/creative endeavor, and service. A
recommendation to award tenure is based upon the following evidence and criteria
established in the School of Education.
a.
Teaching
Satisfactory. IPFW faculty are expected to be effective teachers and to have
demonstrated a significant commitment to teaching. Multiple measures of evidence
for satisfactory teaching should include an assessment on the dimensions of the (a)
substantive and (b) pedagogical aspects of teaching indicating on-going growth and
development. Efforts toward continuous teaching improvement and development of
instructional innovations are encouraged and should be evaluated overtime for
impact. Specifically,
1.
2.
Candidates provide multiple measures of teaching effectiveness as
evidence of continuing growth as a teacher;
Candidates summarize comprehensive student evaluation data for
each course taught. The data are analyzed for patterns, trends, and/or
evidence of student learning;
i.
On a 5-point course evaluation scale (1= poor; 5 = excellent)
candidates receive evaluation scores consistently at or above
3.5;
5
ii.
3.
4.
5.
b.
Qualitative student comments indicate patterns of strengths,
abilities, and positive impact;
Candidates respond to and/or act on feedback from peers, on-campus
and off-campus, demonstrating how they have improved their
teaching;
Candidates show evidence of continuous course and/or curriculum
development; and
Candidates document further evidence of satisfactory teaching (see
Appendix B - Sources for Evidence for Promotion and Tenure:
Teaching).
Research/Scholarship/Creative endeavor
Satisfactory. The evidence establishes that the faculty member has developed a
program of research/scholarship/creative endeavor in a specific field and has
contributed to that field either some original inquiry or unique interpretations or
synthesis that are contributions to the dissemination of new knowledge. Progress
beyond the doctoral dissertation should be evident in both publications and
presentations.
The faculty member should have established a record of publications and
presentations. Candidates should provide a minimum of three published works -appropriate to the discipline – in quality journals and/or with quality publishers to be
satisfactory in research/scholarship/creative endeavor. However, the quality of
production is considered more important than mere quantity; both should be
considered when evaluating research/scholarship/creative endeavor. The faculty
member should have a clearly established agenda and should show promise of
continued development as an independent scholar. Where appropriate to the
discipline, the potential to compete for grant and/or contract support for
research/scholarship/creative endeavor has been demonstrated. The following can be
used to evaluate the work.
1.
The quality of the published research/scholarship/creative endeavor.
Considerations include: the rigor of the peer review involved in the
publication; the appropriateness and status or reputation of the journal
or publisher (e.g., acceptance rate, where journal is indexed, ranking
of journal); the commentary from peer or outside reviewers on the
importance and impact of the published work; and indicators that the
work is cited by others and/or has had an impact on the field.
2.
The quantity of the published research/scholarship/creative endeavor.
Considerations include: whether the number of publications and
presentations, considering the discipline and the nature of the work,
are appropriate to the rank; and whether the record demonstrates a
generally sustained flow of work (after due consideration for the
nature of the work and review/publication timetables). Again, the
quality of the work is more important than quantity, but the amount of
6
the research/scholarship/creative endeavor produced is to be
considered in context with the quality/value of the work.
3.
c.
Independence of output. Considerations include whether the faculty
member has moved beyond the simple extension of his/her doctoral
work and established a clear research agenda. Both single-authored
and co-authored works are valued. Co-authorship with collaborators
should follow the norms of the field. In each case the faculty member
should explain his/her contribution to the published work.
Service
Satisfactory. IPFW faculty are expected to take an active role in the department
beyond teaching and research/scholarship/creative endeavor. They are encouraged to
contribute their expertise to the School of Education, university, community, state,
and/or nation and to participate in professional organizations. Service to the
profession extends the reputation of the university, advances the profession, and
allows the faculty member to encounter emerging ideas. Service to the community
places a faculty member in situations where theory is translated into practice. It
compels the faculty member to recognize problems confronting the field of
education. Therefore, satisfactory service includes evidence of:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
3.
Executing duties assigned by the Chair and Dean (e.g., program
assessment);
Contributing to the day-to-day governance of the department, school,
and university;
Serving on multiple department, school, or campus-wide committees;
Participating in and/or leading professional organizations; and
Showing evidence of interacting with the community in a manner that
promotes the School of Education at IPFW.
Criteria for Promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor
Criteria for promotion from assistant to associate professor are based upon performance
while employed at IPFW and the potential for continued professional growth. When
considered for promotion, the individual should be assessed in regard to all three criteria
from the preceding section (teaching, research/scholarship/creative endeavor, and service).
Favorable action should result when the individual has demonstrated a level of excellence
appropriate to the proposed rank in at least one area and satisfactory performance in the
remaining areas. In considering the criteria for teaching, research/scholarship/creative
endeavor, and service, evidence used to support a tenure case may also be used as partial
support for a candidate considered for promotion along with the additional requirements
specified below.
According to IPFW documents, the basis for promotion is a record of satisfactory teaching,
research/scholarship/creative endeavor, and service with excellence exhibited in one of these
areas. However, the Department of Educational Studies strongly suggests that candidates
choose teaching or research as an area of excellence for promotion to Associate Professor.
7
In order to appropriately assess an area of excellence, external reviews must be gained for
that area. For example, if a candidate is seeking promotion based on excellence in teaching,
then documents and other sources of evidence related to teaching must be submitted for
external review.
a.
Excellence in Teaching
If teaching is the primary basis for promotion to Associate Professor, the candidate’s
performance should demonstrate meeting all of the criteria for satisfactory teaching
as well as the following criteria for excellence:
1.
2.
3.
4.
b.
Additional measures (beyond section 2.a) of teaching effectiveness and
outstanding performance as a classroom teacher.
On a 5-point course evaluation scale (1= poor; 5 = excellent), candidates
documenting excellence in the classroom should receive evaluation scores
consistently above 4.0 accompanied by strong patterns of positive qualitative
comments.
Evidence toward a national visibility in teaching should include
documentation of an active role in communicating instructional efforts and
innovations nationally or internationally. This documentation should include
scholarly publication(s) (see 2.b for definitions regarding quality, quantity,
and independence) and refereed presentation(s) about the teaching-learning
process in addition to the three publications required for being satisfactory in
research.
Documentation of mentoring students to present or publish
research/scholarship/creative endeavor projects in a scholarly venue.
Excellence in Research/Scholarship/Creative Endeavor
If research/scholarship/creative endeavor is the primary basis for promotion to
Associate Professor, the candidate’s performance should demonstrate meeting all of
the criteria for satisfactory research/scholarship/creative endeavor (see 2.b for
definitions regarding quality, quantity, and independence) as well as the following
criteria for excellence:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The faculty member should have established a record of presentations and
publications, with a minimum of three additional published works in quality
journals and/or with quality publishers (i.e., minimum total equals six
publications).
The faculty member’s work suggests that a clear research agenda with
continuity and connection between individual projects has been established.
External reviews are generally positive about the quality of the work and
indicate that the faculty member has established a national or international
reputation as an original contributor through research/scholarship/creative
endeavor.
The faculty member shows promise of continued development as a
researcher/ scholar.
8
5.
c.
Where appropriate to the discipline, the faculty member has demonstrated the
ability to compete favorably for grant and/or contract support for the
research.
Excellence in Service
If service is the primary basis for promotion to Associate Professor, the candidate’s
performance should demonstrate meeting all of the criteria for satisfactory service as
well as the following criteria for excellence:
Promotion to Associate Professor based upon excellence in service is based on
substantial evidence that the candidate provides leadership and service in multiple
dimensions that result in recognition for the candidate or IPFW or the candidate’s
professional organization. Candidates show evidence of more than a normal amount,
range, and scope of leadership in service and an assessment of outstanding quality or
effectiveness of that leadership. Evidence of a developing reputation for excellence
in professional services beyond the local level should be presented. Service activities
are often tied to one’s field of knowledge and ability to relate this knowledge to
professional activity for the betterment of the field of education.
4.
Criteria for Promotion from Associate Professor to Full Professor
Tenured faculty members at an associate level may seek promotion to full professor. In
rare cases, individuals hired at an associate level without tenure may seek tenure and
promotion to full professor at the same time. Criteria for promotion from associate to full
professor are based upon performance and continued professional growth and achievement
in one’s field since an individual’s last promotion that is externally recognized by one’s
professional peers. When considered for promotion, the individual should be assessed in
regard to the criteria from the preceding section of 2.a. Satisfactory in Teaching, 2.b.
Satisfactory in Research/Scholarship/Creative Endeavor, and 2.c. Satisfactory in Service.
Favorable action should result when the individual has demonstrated a level of excellence
appropriate to the proposed rank in at least one area and satisfactory performance in the
remaining areas.
According to IPFW documents, the basis for promotion is a record of satisfactory teaching,
research/scholarship/creative endeavor, and service with excellence exhibited in one of these
areas - teaching, research, or service.
In order to appropriately assess an area of excellence, external reviews must be gained for
that area. For example, if a candidate is seeking promotion based on excellence in teaching,
then documents and other sources of evidence related to teaching must be submitted for
external review.
a.
Excellence in Teaching
If teaching is the primary basis for promotion to Full Professor, the candidate’s
performance should demonstrate meeting all of the criteria for satisfactory teaching
9
(section 2.a) as well as the following criteria for excellence:
1. Additional measures (beyond section 2.a) of teaching effectiveness and
outstanding performance as a classroom teacher.
2. On a 5-point course evaluation scale (1= poor; 5 = excellent), candidates
documenting excellence in the classroom should receive evaluation scores
consistently above 4.0 accompanied by strong patterns of positive qualitative
comments.
3. Evidence of a national visibility in teaching should include documentation of an
active role in communicating instructional efforts and innovations nationally or
internationally. This documentation should include a scholarly book(s), revisions
of it, or at least two scholarly publication(s) (see 2.b for definitions regarding
quality, quantity, and independence), and refereed presentation(s), which address
the teaching-learning process in addition to the three publications required for
being satisfactory in research.
4. External reviews are generally positive about the quality of the work and indicate
that the faculty member has established a national or international reputation as
an original contributor to teaching.
5. Documentation of mentoring students to present or publish
research/scholarship/creative endeavor projects in a scholarly venue.
6. Where appropriate to the discipline, the faculty member has demonstrated the
ability to compete favorably for grant(s) and/or contract support for teaching.
b.
Excellence in Research/Scholarship/Creative Endeavor
If research/scholarship/creative endeavor is the primary basis for promotion to Full
Professor, the candidate’s performance should demonstrate meeting all of the
criteria for satisfactory research/scholarship/creative endeavor (see 2.b for
definitions regarding quality, quantity, and independence) as well as the following
criteria for excellence:
1. The faculty member should have established and documented a record of peerreviewed publications and presentations. This documentation should include a
scholarly book(s), new edition(s) of book(s), or at least four scholarly
publication(s) in quality journals and/or with quality publishers (i.e., minimum
total equals seven publications), and refereed presentation(s).
2. The faculty member’s work maintains a clear research agenda with continuity
and connection between or among projects.
3. External reviews are generally positive about the quality of the work and indicate
that the faculty member has established a national or international reputation as
an original contributor through research/scholarship/creative endeavor.
4. The faculty member shows continued development as a researcher/ scholar.
5. Where appropriate to the discipline, the faculty member has demonstrated the
ability to compete favorably for grant(s) and/or contract support for the research.
c.
Excellence in Service
10
If service is the primary basis for promotion to Full Professor, the candidate’s
performance should demonstrate meeting all of the criteria for satisfactory service
(section 2.c) as well as the following criteria for excellence:
Promotion to Full Professor based upon excellence in service documents substantial
evidence that the candidate provides leadership and service in multiple dimensions
that result in recognition for the candidate’s achievement, academic unit, campus, or
professional organization. Candidates show evidence of more than a normal amount,
range, and scope of leadership in service and an assessment of outstanding quality or
effectiveness of that leadership. Evidence of an established reputation for excellence
in professional service beyond the local level should be presented. Service activities
are often tied to one’s field of knowledge and ability to relate this knowledge to
professional activity for the betterment of the field of education.
1. To demonstrate the intellectual work of service, the faculty member should have
established a record of publications and refereed presentations related to service.
Publications include an institutional report, a scholarly textbook(s), or at least
two scholarly publication(s) (see 2.b for definitions regarding quality, quantity,
and independence). This documentation is in addition to the three publications
required for being satisfactory in research.
2. The faculty member’s work establishes or maintains a service agenda.
3. External reviews are generally positive about the quality of the work and indicate
that the faculty member has established a national or international reputation as
an original contributor through service.
4. The faculty member shows continued development as a leader in service at
multiple levels.
5. Where appropriate to the discipline, the faculty member has demonstrated the
ability to compete favorably for grant(s) and/or significant collaboration(s) (e.g.,
with external organizations, fundraisers, etc.) for the service.
C.
Reappointment/Non-Reappointment Guidelines and Timelines
The reappointment process and agreement is essentially a 1-year contract that the university
completes to endorse faculty employment for the upcoming year. During the pre-tenure or
“probationary” years, they will be asked to submit an annual report of accomplishments in
the areas of teaching, research/scholarship/creative endeavor, and service and a current vita.
The reappointment materials are officially reviewed by the Department Chair and the Dean
and recommendations are made to the office of the VCAA to reappoint or renew the 1-year
contract or to dissolve the contract. When faculty first arrive on campus, they perceive the
reappointment process as occurring very quickly so they should be diligent to remain
organized and productive from Day 1. Plenty of guidance is available from existing faculty
and administrative sources to assist faculty in understanding what is required so that they
move toward tenure and promotion in a productive and systematic process.
Because the initial reappointments occur very quickly (the first in November of the first year
and the second in August or September beginning the second year), faculty are encouraged
11
from the first day to organize information in the three categories of teaching,
research/scholarship/creative endeavor, and service. Given that the first reappointment
occurs within the first 3-4 months of the first teaching year, course teaching evaluations for
the first semester will not yet be available. However, faculty can include copies of syllabi, a
current vitae, and a list of any creative/scholarship/creative endeavor projects, grants, or
presentations that they are currently pursuing or plan to pursue in the near future, and early
service activities. After the first two reappointments, remaining reappointments fall within
the same time frame as the annual reviews so the same documents can be used for both.
The key to annual reappointment is one’s individual ability to organize the materials and to
show productivity and progress toward tenure in the three central areas of teaching,
research/scholarship/creative endeavor, and service. See the specific guidelines for
Reappointment Review on the VCAA webpage under Memorandum No. 04-3 or Appendix
C.
Candidates for tenure track reappointments are expected to provide the following
documentation to the Department Chair and the Dean of the School of Education, according
to the schedule provided by the Department Chair:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
A current curriculum vita,
All current and previous annual reviews (peer reviews, Chair, Dean, and
VCAA’s), with supporting evidence for the most recent year in the areas of
teaching, research/scholarship/creative endeavor, and service,
All previous reappointment recommendations from all levels,
All raw and summary student evaluation forms for the most recent year, and
Any additional documents which provide evidence that the candidate is
meeting criteria for teaching, research/scholarship/creative endeavor, and
service by the candidate.
These materials should be categorized and organized based upon the Department of
Educational Studies and the IPFW campus Promotion and Tenure Documents.
For reappointment each year, the Chair of Educational Studies completes a written
evaluation of each non-tenured faculty member after reviewing their materials in regard to
teaching, research/scholarship/creative endeavors, and service. This evaluation should be
perceived by the faculty member as being a valuable resource in assisting them to address
problems or achieve goals that both they and the administration consider to be important.
The chair should meet with the faculty member to discuss the evaluation which will then
be forwarded to the dean. The dean writes an independent evaluation after reviewing the
chair’s evaluation along with the faculty member’s reappointment materials. The dean’s
evaluation serves both a formative and summative purpose. The dean’s evaluation
provides suggestions for improving or enhancing faculty performance to aid the faculty
member in developing strengths or overcoming weaknesses.
After meeting with the faculty member to discuss his/her evaluation, the dean forwards the
dean’s and chair’s reappointment evaluations, based on the faculty member’s materials, to
the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.
12
Copies of evaluations and other related personnel action forms are forwarded to all faculty
members each year and originals are placed in the confidential personnel file of the faculty
member. This confidential file is maintained in the School of Education office.
Timeline for Reappointment
Specific dates will be announced each year depending on the calendar and university
requirements. Note that for the first two reappointments, the reappointment and Annual
Review for merit occur at two separate times. From the third reappointment through
promotion and tenure, reappointment and merit review occur at the same point with the
same document. Unsatisfactory performance or progress is grounds for nonreappointment at any point, beginning in year one. Faculty should refer to OAA
Memorandum No. 04-3 in the Appendix for specific guidelines.
D.
Schedule of Review for Reappointment/Non-Reappointment for Tenure Track Faculty
1. Year 1 faculty reappointment materials are due to the chair November 1st of the first
semester (note: the Annual Review for merit is separate and is due in February). A
positive reappointment decision serves to insure employment for year 2 with faculty
notification in February. A non-reappointment decision serves as a 3- months notice.
2. Year 2 faculty reappointment materials are due to the chair by September 15th of the
second year (note: the Annual Review for merit is separate and is due in February). A
positive reappointment decision serves to insure employment for year 3 with faculty
notification in November. A non-reappointment decision serves as a 6-months notice.
Year 2 faculty reappointment materials are again due to the chair during the second
year of employment the second Friday in February in the form of the Annual Review
(note: this is three months after the second-year reappointment). A positive
reappointment serves to insure employment for year 4 with faculty notification in May.
A non-reappointment decision serves as a 1- year notice.
3. Year 3 faculty reappointment materials are due to the chair by the second Friday in
February and also serves to form the Annual Review. This annual review follows a
special format and serves as a comprehensive 3rd –year review. A comprehensive
department-based third year review prepared according to the Promotion and Tenure
dossier format outlined in OAA 99-1 is required in year 3 (See third-year review
guidelines). A positive reappointment serves to insure employment for year 5 with
faculty notification in May. A non-reappointment decision serves as a 1-year notice.
4. Year 4 faculty reappointment materials are due to the chair by the second Friday in
February and also serves to inform the Annual Review. A positive reappointment
serves to insure employment for year 6 with faculty notification in May. A nonreappointment serves as a 1-year notice.
5. Year 5 faculty reappointment materials are due to the chair by the second Friday in
February and also serves to inform the Annual Review. A positive reappointment
serves to insure employment for year 7 with faculty notification in May. A nonreappointment serves as a 1-year notice.
13
6. Year 6 faculty promotion and tenure dossier is due to the department in early fall.
Positive tenure decisions are announced in the spring. If tenure is denied, the end of
the probationary period is the day before the start of the fall contract date.
E. Annual Faculty Review (tenure-track faculty)
1. Each year, tenure-track faculty evaluate themselves in regard to teaching, research and
creative endeavor, and service activities. It is suggested that faculty members organize
their materials according to the format of the campus promotion and tenure document
(OAA Memorandum 93-1). Particularly during the tenure-track years, it is suggested
that faculty members use multiple means of documentation such as those listed in the
OAA Memorandum 93-1, Senate Document SD 94-3, and the School of Education and
Department of Educational Studies Guidelines to gather information to assess
performance relative to their own needs, goals, and objectives. The annual faculty report
should reflect accomplishments from the previous calendar year and should be
completed and submitted to the department chair by the second Friday in February.
2. Annually, each tenure-track faculty member has the option of selecting a peer review
committee (to include at least one tenured faculty member from the School of
Education), to provide feedback for the previous year’s activities in the areas of
teaching. research and creative endeavor, and service. The faculty member has the
option of retaining the peer feedback results or including this in the annual report which
is sent to the Department Chair and the Dean. Although the peer review committee is
optional with the exception of year 3, in practice, the peer review feedback is
recommended as one of the several sources of information in a comprehensive faculty
evaluation. The peer review committee should be selected by the faculty member to be
reviewed no later than the second week in January. The annual report materials should
be submitted to the peer review committee by the end of January. The annual report and
peer review are due to the chair by the second Friday in February.
F. Annual Peer Review Committees for Tenure-Track Faculty
1.
Membership
a. The faculty member to be reviewed will choose tenured or tenure track faculty
members to serve on their committee. At least one member of the committee must
be tenured within the Department of Educational Studies. A tenured member must
chair the committee.
b. The committee should be established by the second week of January.
2. The faculty member to be reviewed has the option to select the chair of their
committee.
3. Responsibilities of the peer-review committee.
14
a. The peer review committee should review the annual report documents provided
by the tenure track faculty member under review..
b. The written feedback of the committee should summarize teaching, research and
creative endeavor, and service for the calendar year and when possible, should
provide evaluative comments on progress toward promotion and tenure.
c. The written summative portion is to be submitted by the committee chair to the
other committee members for approval and signature, then presented to the faculty
member being reviewed. The reviewed faculty member may then choose to submit
the peer review with Annual Report to the chair of the department.
d. An informative verbal review will be presented informally by the chair of the
committee to the reviewed faculty member.
G. Each year the Chair of the Department of Educational Studies completes a written
evaluation of each tenure-track faculty member in regard to teaching, research and creative
endeavor, and service. This evaluation should be perceived by the faculty as being a
valuable resource in assisting them to address problems or to achieve goals that both they
and the administration consider to be important.
1. The Chair’s evaluation is send to the Dean. The Dean writes an independent evaluation
after reviewing the Chair’s evaluation along with the faculty member’s annual report
materials. The Dean’s evaluation serves both a formative and summative purpose. The
Dean’s evaluation provides suggestions for improving or enhancing faculty performance
to aid the faculty member in developing strengths or overcoming weaknesses.
2. The Dean sends the Dean’s and the Chair’s evaluation, based on the faculty member’s
annual report, to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.
3. Copies of evaluations and other related personnel action forms are forwarded to all
faculty members each year and originals are placed in the confidential personnel file of
the faculty member. This confidential file is maintained in the Dean’s office of the
School of Education.
H. Third Year Review Policy and Procedures
1. It is the policy of the faculty of the department to conduct a formal third-year review of
assistant professors. This review will take place prior to the faculty member’s third
Annual Review (after 2.5 years of employment), which allows the candidate
approximately 2.5 years to respond to recommendations in the review prior to submitting
a case for promotion and tenure. If the faculty member is officially bringing in years
from another institution, when possible, this review should take place at least two years
before P&T. The review committee’s conclusions and recommendations are not a direct
decision on the faculty member’s employment (or reappointment), but will be used by
the department chair as one point of data for evaluating the progress of the faculty
member.
15
2. Procedures
a. The faculty member under review selects a committee of three tenured faculty. Two
members must be from the department, and the chair must be a tenured member of
the department.
b. The faculty member will prepare a full case with appendices using the department’s
promotion and tenure criteria. This case will cover all information since being hired
at IPFW, previous material should be submitted if the faculty member is officially
bringing in years from another institution.
c. Due to the extra work involved in reviewing a third-year review, the case will be
given to the peer review committee by the end of the second week of January (as
compared to the end of January for the regular Annual Review).
d. The committee will review the case according to the department’s promotion and
tenure guidelines.
e. In a detailed summary letter, the committee will:
Report the candidate’s progress toward P&T (a summary of accomplishments),
Provide an evaluation of the faculty member’s likelihood of achieving tenure at the
current rate of production, using the promotion and tenure language of satisfactory
and excellence for each category of teaching, research and service,
Provide specific and detailed recommendations for the faculty member to achieve
promotion and tenure,
Provide a one-year peer review of the most recent calendar year, as described in the
peer review section, and
Provide a recommendation to the chair for or against reappointment of the faculty
member.
f. The whole committee will meet with the faculty member to review the letter by the
end of the first week of February.
g. The final letter, signed by all committee members, is forwarded to the faculty
member and department chair prior to the due date for the Annual Review (second
Friday in February). The faculty member may attach a written response to the
committee’s report.
I. Annual Faculty Reviews (tenured faculty)
Each year, tenured faculty evaluate themselves in regard to teaching, research and creative
endeavor, and service activities. It is suggested that faculty members organize their
16
materials according to the format of the campus promotion and tenure document (OAA
Memorandum 93-1). It is suggested that faculty members use multiple means of
documentation such as those listed in the OAA Memorandum 93-1, Senate Document SD
94-3, and the School of Education and Department of Educational Studies Guidelines to
gather information to assess performance relative to their own needs, goals, and objectives.
Tenured faculty at the rank of professor may, at their discretion, submit a current curriculum
vita with appropriate entries highlighted in lieu of a formal annual report. To be considered
for a merit increase however, tenured faculty at any rank must submit an annual report that
reviews the achievements in teaching, research and creative endeavor, and service. The
annual faculty report should reflect accomplishments from the previous calendar year and
should be completed and submitted to the department chair by the second Friday in
February.
1. The Chair will complete a written evaluation of the tenured faculty member’s annual
report documents.
2. The Chair will forward this evaluation and the faculty member’s annual report to the
Dean for review and evaluation.
J. Merit Evaluation Criteria
Each year, in the fall semester, the department Faculty Affairs Committee will review and
revise the department merit criteria document in determining merit raises. Ideally, the
faculty annual report serves as the central document that guides the Dean and/or Chair’s
decisions concerning merit raises. The Chair and/or Dean will communicate with each
faculty member to share the results of their evaluation of the annual report and to discuss
merit recommendations. Merit will be based upon achievement in teaching, research and
creative endeavor, and service for all faculty members. For additional information
concerning annual merit and salary allocation, faculty should consult the SOE governance
document.
17