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