Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

See “Policies and Procedures for Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure.”

SPECIFIC PROCEDURES: Teaching Professors and Professors of Practice

VII. Annual Performance Review and Recommendation

Continuing appointment of Teaching Professors and Professors of Practice is premised on 1) the duration of current appointment (typically three or five years), and 2) an annual performance review.  Annual evaluations serve as an important means of providing ongoing constructive feedback.  As with other types of annual performance reviews, the evaluation is based on the extent to which the faculty member’s activities meet or exceed expectations articulated in the specific academic unit’s written evidences for performance in the faculty member’s current title and rank. 

  1. The performance of all Teaching Professors and Professors of Practice should be reviewed in writing by the department chair/director each year. The review should be based on a close assessment of the quality of the faculty member’s activities with regard to teaching/advising and service (and if appropriate, research/creative work) as recorded in the faculty member’s Curriculum Vitae Update Form, summaries of student course evaluations for the preceding calendar year (spring and fall semesters), course syllabi, and feedback from relevant sources regarding quality of service work, etc.  A template for organizing the review letter is available from the college’s Office of Academic Affairs.
  2. Reviews will be conducted early in the spring semester of each year, with due dates based on the calendar provided by the VPA Office of Academic Affairs.
  3. A copy of the department chair/director’s review letter is provided to the appropriate faculty member in advance of the date the letter is to be submitted to the VPA Office of Academic Affairs, and the faculty member is invited to meet with the chair/director to discuss the review.
  4. Discussion with the faculty member about the review should focus on both strengths and weaknesses, with an emphasis on how performance can be improved in the subsequent year.
  5. If the faculty member believes the chair/director’s review of their performance is biased or otherwise unfair, they may appeal the review to the department/school’s tenure and promotion committ The appeal must be in writing to the chair/director within five working days of their performance review meeting with the chair/director. The tenure and promotion committee should review the same materials that were submitted for the chair/director’s review, and reach an independent judgment regarding the faculty member’s performance. If this judgment differs significantly from the chair/director’s assessment, both reviews are submitted to the dean for final arbitration.
  6. The chair/director sends a copy of the review letter to the VPA Office of Academic Affairs for the dean’s review and for inclusion in the faculty member’s personnel file.
  7. There should be a clear consonance between the substance of the chair/director’s review of a given faculty member’s performance and the chair/director’s subsequent merit salary recommendation to the dean.

SPECIFIC PROCEDURES: Tenured Faculty and Post-Tenure Review

...

VIII. Post-Tenure Review

The granting of tenure and promotion to associate professor is accompanied by appropriate expectations, including the expectation of continued striving for excellence in teaching/advising, research/creative work, and service.  Whereas the first two expectations regarding teaching and research reflect a continuation of the accomplishments that result in tenure and promotion, the expectations regarding service reflect a marked increase in both the quality and degree of effort in service activities. This shift in level of service is also aimed at helping to reduce the service load on the next generation of tenure-track faculty, enabling them to devote a higher percentage of effort towards teaching and research.

...