|
|
Faculty Resources RTP
Procedures |
|
Criteria and Procedures Used at Department and College Levels to Conduct Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Reviews in the College of Education at The University of North Carolina at Charlotte
First Edition: September 1, 1994
Second Edition: August 15, 1995
Third Edition: August 15, 1996
Fourth Edition: March 23, 2000
Fifth Edition: 2004
Table of Contents
Section One: Under girding Principles
Section Two: The Professorial Role Expectations of All Faculty in the College of Education
Specific Standards Relevant to Three Domains
Section Three: The Candidate’s Dossier for
I:
The candidate’s narrative statement II: The candidate’s current vita (Required)
III: Copies of all prior annual evaluation IV: Materials relevant to teaching (Required)
V:
Materials relevant to
VII: A list of additional materials
and documents
Section Four: The Sequence of Steps and Timeline
for
Section Five: Review Committees
Appendix A: Recommended Outline for Curriculum Vitae
In the Vision Statement of the College of Education (Rising to the challenge: preparing excellent professionals, 2004), the vision for faculty achievement centers on these actions:
The College of Education first developed and approved the Criteria and Procedures Used at Department and College Levels to Conduct Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Reviews in the College of Education at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte in 1994. The document is designed to help faculty reach the vision of excellence described above and to guide faculty and administrative reviewers in making fair and appropriate recommendations for reappointment, promotion, and/or tenure. The document is a living document that has been modified in 1995, 1996, and 2000 by faculty vote and in response to both our experience with the document and the evolving mission of the College. This latest revision again responds to our experience (the need for greater clarity for some aspects of the criteria and procedures) and our evolving mission, most especially UNC Charlotte’s reclassification as a doctoral, research intensive institution in 2000.
Like its predecessors, this version, the 5th edition of the Criteria and Procedures Used at Department and College Levels to Conduct Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Reviews in the College of Education at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, provides guidance to candidates who are preparing for reappointment, promotion, and/or tenure reviews and for the faculty committees and University administrators who conduct the reviews. The procedures for personnel reviews that are described in this document are intended to be consistent with those described in the University’s Tenure Policies, Regulations, and Procedures (TPRP-04.) In the event of a conflict between this document and the TPRP-04, the terms of the TPRP-04 shall have precedent.
This latest edition of the Criteria and Promotions document is the result of a two-year faculty-led process that examined our document for accuracy and clarity and made recommendations for improvement. This effort was led by a subcommittee of the College’s Committee for Accreditation/Continuous Improvement: Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and Development. Dr. Melba Spooner, Associate Professor, Elementary Education, chaired the committee. Committee members included:
The Committee began its work in July 2002 by sending a survey to all faculty who were tenured or in tenure eligible positions. The survey asked faculty to indicate their degree of agreement with the following statements:
1. The RPT process was clear to me.
2. RPT criteria/standards should be ranked or weighted as to importance.
3. My mentor played an active role in the development of my dossier.
4. The annual report (content and format) was useful in the preparation of my dossier.
5. More specific guidelines for formatting/organizing the dossier would be helpful.
6. The feedback received from the chair, DRC, CRC, and Dean was helpful in improving my teaching, research, and service.
7. The dossier should provide documentation of effective instruction based on student learning.
The survey then asked all respondents to rate all standards listed in the 4th edition of the document (March, 2000) in Teaching, Research, and Service on these two dimensions:
· Clarity · Importance
As a next step in assessing the effectiveness of the document, a series of four focus groups for faculty were held in October 2002. Additionally, interviews were held with the Provost, the Dean, and Department Chairs regarding their experiences with the document as a guide to RPT decisions and as a tool for faculty development. The Committee also interviewed two full professors who bring diversity to the College to get their perspectives.
The Committee analyzed the findings from the survey and from the interviews and focus groups and, based on these findings, generated a list of recommendations to guide the revision of the Criteria and Procedures Used at Department and College Levels to Conduct Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Reviews in the College of Education. These recommendations, which were presented to the faculty and approved unanimously in March 2003, served as guidelines that directed the revision process:
1. Expand the workgroup for this task to make sure that there is good representation by gender and by rank.
2. Review the criteria for promotion to full professor: a. Review existing criteria to determine which should be applied generally to all areas
b. Determine (if any) which criteria that currently apply to promotion to associate professor should be moved to apply to promotion to full professor
c. Specifically communicate that for promotion to full professor the candidate must meet all three areas (teaching, research, and service), but that they must have distinction in one area. The candidate should explicitly identify the area of distinction.
d. Identify criteria that are examples of “distinction,” and/or identify additional criteria of distinction in each area (teaching, research, and service). 3. Review and subsequently develop guidelines for the RPT document that clarify the document’s use in a holistic manner. The guidelines should provide a structure and process for CRC, DRC, and Department Chair annual training in the review process. The guidelines should be reviewed annually.
4. Review criteria to edit language for clarity, and identify/specify criteria of primary importance (required) and criteria of secondary importance (recommended/optional).
5. Develop a mentoring program for faculty who are post-tenure and who are interested in promotion from associate to full professor.
6. Develop a faculty-mentoring program that is a sustained, valued, and rewarded role within the College.
The Committee used these guiding principles to work over the summer in 2003 to revise the document. The draft of the revised document was sent by email to all faculty in September 2003. Open meetings, departmental discussions, and review by the College of Education Faculty Council occurred in September. The revision was presented formally to the College of Education faculty at its October 7, 2003 meeting. Following that meeting, paper ballots were distributed to eligible faculty voters (tenured/ tenure eligible faculty.) Forty-five ballots were cast, with the following results:
Approve: 38 Do not approve: 7
The revision was therefore approved, effective for the 04-05 academic year.
This 5th edition not only reflects the needed changes identified by the faculty to enhance clarity and to capture accurately the expectations for faculty in the College of Education but also reflects great respect for the original document which was implemented in 1994. Let me briefly review the development of that first edition. During Spring Semester 1994, Dr. John Nagle, then Dean of the College, asked the members of the 1993-94 College Review Committee to help him develop clear, written, and public criteria and procedures for conducting reappointment, promotion, and tenure reviews at the College level. The members of the committee included Richard Antonak, Carl Ashbaugh, Linda Berne, Bobbie Rowland, Gene Schaffer, and me. The preface to the first edition described feedback on the initial draft as “generally very positive, and most of those who provided input cited the increased clarity, focus, structure, rigor, and helpfulness of the new criteria and procedures for all involved.” The first edition was approved in 1994 for piloting in 1994-95. In the fall of 1995, each of the College’s academic departments formally adopted the new criteria and procures for use in their department-level reviews for reappointment, promotion, and tenure in 1995-96. As a consequence, for the first time, the same criteria and procedures guided the reviews at both the department and the College levels.
Let me conclude this introduction by thanking the Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and Development Committee, a subcommittee of the College’s Accreditation/ Continuous Improvement Committee, for its leadership in preparing this revision and to all who participated in the review and debate that led to the approval of the document. Our vision for faculty excellence is supported and strengthened by these criteria and procedures.
Mary Lynne Calhoun Dean August 12, 2004
Under girding Principles
Several principles under gird these criteria and procedures for use by the College Review Committee and Dean and by department review committees and department chairs to conduct reappointment, promotion, and tenure reviews of faculty in the College of Education:
1. The criteria and procedures used at College and department levels are consistent with both The Code of The University of North Carolina and the guidelines defined in the Tenure Policies, Regulations, and Procedures of The University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Three sections of the latter document are particularly relevant:
Section III, B: General Considerations in Faculty Appointments
Recommendations for initial appointment, reappointment, promotion, or for conferral of permanent tenure shall be based upon an assessment of at least the following: (1) the faculty member's demonstrated professional competence; (2) potential for future contribution to The University of North Carolina at Charlotte; and (3) institutional needs and resources. (page 3)
Section IV, D, 1: Permissible and Impermissible Grounds for Decisions
Except as herein provided, decisions pertaining to reappointment, promotion and conferral of permanent tenure are, without further recourse, the responsibility of the officers of administration authorized to make them, acting in accordance with procedures prescribed herein. In exercise of their judgment, whether in the first instance or in review of a recommendation, such officers may take into account and use as the basis of decision, in whole or in part, any factors deemed relevant to total institutional interests, except that in no event shall a decision not to reappoint be based upon: (1) exercise by the faculty member of rights of freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States or by Article I of the Constitution of North Carolina; or (2) discrimination based upon the race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, age, or national origin of the faculty member; or (3) personal malice. (page 11)
Section V. A: Material Procedural Irregularities as Grounds for Review of a Decision
"Material procedural irregularities" means departures from prescribed procedures governing reappointment that cast reasonable doubt upon the validity of the original decision not to reappoint. (page 14)
2. The criteria and procedures used at department levels are consistent with the criteria and procedures used at the College level.
3. The review process at both College and department levels is guided by an explicit set of professorial role expectations for all faculty in the College that include both broad expectations and specific standards relevant to teaching, research, and service (See Section Two). 4. Responsibility for presenting the case for reappointment, promotion, or tenure rests with the faculty candidate, who, with the help of his or her department chair, is expected to prepare a dossier that addresses the professorial role expectations of all faculty in the College (See Section Three for a description of the content of the expected dossier, including both its required sections of information and an overview of potential other materials that a candidate may or may not choose to include).
5. A critical part of the candidate's dossier is a narrative statement in which the candidate describes how he or she has met and integrated the teaching, research, and service expectations of all faculty in the College (See Section Three for more descriptive information about the narrative statement).
6. When conducting their independent reviews (See Section Four), the College Review Committee and the Dean and department review committees and department chairs are expected to use the professorial role expectations described in Section Two as the criteria for evaluation. They are expected to review the candidate's complete dossier in terms of both the broad expectations of a faculty member and the specific standards for teaching, research, and service. Then, based on their assessment of the evidence presented and available to them, the committees, chairs, and Dean are expected to independently consider the total profile presented by each candidate and to make independent holistic judgments about his or her performance and potential as a faculty member in the College.
7. Although different profiles of faculty activities and accomplishments will inevitably emerge -- and should be encouraged, given the breadth of experience, expertise, interests, and responsibilities among faculty in the College -- the following decision-rules will guide both the College Review Committee and the Dean when making final recommendations or decisions on reappointment, promotion, and tenure.
a. For reappointment, there must be clear evidence in the candidate's total profile that (1) the University's criteria for reappointment have been satisfied, (2) the broad expectations of a faculty member in the college are currently being satisfied, (3) the candidate's performance to date satisfactorily addresses the college's specific standards for teaching, research, and service, and (4) the candidate has demonstrated the potential to be successful in his or her subsequent tenure and promotion review;
b. For tenure and promotion to Associate Professor, there must be clear evidence in the candidate's total profile that (1) the University's criteria for tenure and promotion have been satisfied, (2) the broad expectations of a faculty member in the college continue to be satisfied, (3) and there is a satisfactory record of accomplishment with promise of continued contribution and productivity in all three domains of professorial activity -- teaching, research, and service. While individual faculty profiles are expected to vary, the College Review Committee will not recommend tenure and promotion if the candidate fails to provide evidence of a satisfactory record of accomplishment with promise of continued contribution and productivity in any one of the three domains; and
c. For promotion to Professor, there must be clear evidence in the candidate's total profile that (1) the University's criteria for promotion have been satisfied, (2) the broad expectations of a faculty member in the college continue to be satisfied, (3) there is a strong and sustained record of accomplishment in all three domains of professorial activity -- teaching, research, and service -- and (4) there is distinction in at least one of the three domains but not necessarily all three. To assist in the review process, candidates for promotion to Professor should identify the area(s) of distinction in the narrative statement.
8. To guide individual faculty members in their professional development and to provide them with regular and systematic feedback about their performance, annual evaluations conducted within departments (both a faculty member's annual report of activities and a department chair's annual evaluation and feedback) are expected routinely to (a) clarify the faculty member's specific job responsibilities and (b) evaluate his or her performance in terms of both departmental expectations and the professorial role expectations described in Section Two for all faculty in the College of Education.
The Professorial Role
of All Faculty in the College of Education*
Broad Expectations
A faculty member in the College of Education is expected to do the following:
1. Support the mission and programs of the College and University appropriate to one's role;
2. Demonstrate integrity and high standards of ethical and professional behavior;
3. Be collegial, collaborative, humane, respectful of diversity, and sensitive to others, including students, staff members, other faculty, and professional colleagues in the field;
4. Engage in continuing professional development;
5. Maintain continuing appointment to the Graduate Faculty of the University (unless one's program area is exclusively undergraduate); and
6. Demonstrate an integrated professional focus across three domains of scholarship:
Teaching: Representing knowledge in one's field by:
· Teaching courses · Advising students · Supervising student-directed scholarship (e.g., research, comprehensives, indedependent study projects, theses, dissertations, etc.) · Developing course and program curriculum
Research: Expanding the knowledge base in one’s
·
Conducting research
and generating new · Synthesizing and integrating knowledge
Service: Applying knowledge in one’s field:
· In service to one’s profession · In service to practitioners and community · In service to the institution.
Specific Standards Relevant to Three Domains of Scholarship: Teaching, Research, and Service
1. Teaching: Representing knowledge in one's field by:
a. Teaching coursestc \l3 "Teaching courses
The standards for reappointment: The standards for tenure with strong evidence of potential that they will be met when the tenure decision is scheduled to be made.
The standards for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor:
Note: Standards marked with (*) are expected to be addressed by everyone. *1. Articulates a statement of one's teaching philosophy or belief system about teaching and learning activities *2. Has in-depth understanding about content field and pedagogy *3. Reflects the UNC Charlotte conceptual framework, incorporates appropriate assessments, and integrates diversity through coursework. *4. Clearly aligns teaching to programmatic objectives and accreditation standards *5. Incorporates instructional technology in teaching when appropriate *6. Assesses and values student learning and adjusts instruction appropriately to enhance that learning, using multiple sources of data to improve practice *7. Demonstrates growth in teaching expertise and effectiveness
The standards for promotion to Professor:
8. Exhibits exemplary or state-of-the-art instruction in one's field 9. Demonstrates leadership in mentoring colleagues, particularly junior faculty, in their teaching 10. Participates in the College's peer observation process 11. Possesses recognition in the College and University for quality of one's teaching 12. Makes substantive contributions in teaching and the professional development of educational professionals by conducting professional development seminars, publications, and/or developing curriculum materials at the state, local, and national levels
Potential evidence for a faculty member to present when demonstrating compliance with the above standards:
· *A statement of your teaching philosophy or belief system about teaching · *Peer reviews of your teaching, including peer observations reports · *Student evaluations of course and instructors (all evaluations since last personnel review) · *Peer observation reports prepared by you for other faculty (if applicable) · *Course syllabi · *Description of changed instruction based on student learning · Periodic analyses and interpretations of student evaluations · Student projects, products, and achievements · Evaluations obtained by means of focus grou · Correspondence from students, alumni, or other faculty · Standardized test scores/pre-post test results · Requests to help others with their teaching · Subjective comments of students · Teaching methods, materials, and strategies published or presented · University Curriculum and Instructional Development (CID) grant proposals and grants · Teaching awards and nominations (including the text of these awards) · Sample lecture notes · Requests to participate in curriculum development at the local, regional, and/or state level
Note: The above items or a sample of them may be included in a "teaching portfolio."
b. Advising students
The standards for reappointment: The standards for tenure with strong evidence of potential that they will be met when the tenure decision is scheduled to be made.
The standards for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor:
Note: Standards marked with (*) are expected to be addressed by everyone.
*1. Is accessible to students when appropriate and possible *2. Provides consistent accurate advice to students, and is knowledgeable about programs, policies, and procedures 3. Is considered by students and colleagues to be a helpful and conscientious advisor
The standards for promotion to Professor: The standards for tenure plus this additional standard:
4. Mentors colleagues in advising students 5. Provides excellent advising and mentoring for graduate students (masters, doctoral) 6. Creates opportunities and involves students in professional activities beyond the classroom
Potential evidence for a faculty member to present when demonstrating compliance with the above standards:
· *Evaluations of the quality of advisement provided by current students and graduates · Correspondence from students, alumni, colleagues, program coordinators, and administrators · Description of mentoring activities · Awards for mentoring
c. Supervising student-directed scholarship (e.g., research, comprehensives, independent study projects, theses, Master's degree projects, dissertations, etc.)
The standards for reappointment: The standards for tenure with strong evidence of potential that they will be met when the tenure decision is scheduled to be made.
The standards for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor:
Note: Standards marked with (*) are expected to be addressed by everyone. *1. Possesses expertise in the content and/or technical skills required for student-directed scholarship *2. Provides effective guidance and advisement that enables students to complete their research and scholarship successfully 3. Possesses the ability to evaluate the outcomes or products of student-directed scholarship 4. Makes substantive contributions as a member of dissertation committees 5. Provides effective guidance in mentoring master’s projects/theses
The standards for promotion to Professor:
6. Directs student scholarship activities that have significant positive impact on students' professional development 7. Demonstrates effective leadership of doctoral dissertations 8. Fosters publication and presentation opportunities for undergraduate and graduate students (masters, doctoral)
Potential evidence for a faculty member to present when demonstrating compliance with the above standards:
· *Bibliography of selected projects, reports, theses, or dissertations completed by students · Evaluations by students or graduates · Subsequent publications or professional presentations by students · Correspondence from faculty peers, department chairs, and other committee members
d. Developing course and program curriculum
The standards for reappointment: The standards for tenure with strong evidence of potential that they will be met when the tenure decision is scheduled to be made.
The standards for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor:
Note: Standards marked with (*) are expected to be addressed by everyone.
*1. Is knowledgeable of emerging needs in one's field *2. Is knowledgeable of changes in licensure, certification, and accreditation standards in one's field *3. Refines, updates, and improves courses 4. Participates effectively and successfully in course and program development that is based on established research, best practice, and/or sustained experience with practitioners in one's field 5. Engages in efforts to obtain funding to support course and program development
The standards for promotion to Professor:
6. Demonstrates leadership in course and program development 7. Demonstrates leadership in accreditation and program approval efforts and activities 8. Contributes to state and national curriculum development in field
Potential evidence for a faculty member to present when demonstrating compliance with the above standards:
· * Description of your examination and refinement of teaching practices · Changes and improvements in course syllabi · Teaching methods, materials, and strategies published or presented · Course and program proposals · Faculty or student testimonials · Participation on accreditation or program approval teams · | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
