Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 2 Current »

Downloaded Contract Renewal of Full-Time Faculty Policies and Procedures [Word Doc]

Foreword

 Changes and amendments to this document shall be approved by Faculty Council by majority vote.

This is one of several documents outlining the policies and procedures to be followed in the College of Visual and Performing Arts for contractual renewal, promotion to associate professor with tenure, promotion to full professor, and promotion to associate and full teaching professors.  In as much as these policies and procedures bear heavily on the outcome of application for or appeal of promotion, tenure, and contractual renewal, it is cautioned that they be carefully observed.

Exact dates for submission of materials and committee action on the department/school and college levels shall be set in the fall semester of each academic year by the dean in compliance with the schedules set by the vice chancellor for academic affairs.

Each area within the college shall establish its procedures for mentoring tenure-line faculty, in accordance with overall college guidelines.  It is the responsibility of each director or chairperson to ensure that each tenure-line faculty member has at least one faculty mentor. Consideration may be given to identifying a faculty mentor outside the unit as well as inside the unit, particularly when the faculty member’s research is cross-disciplinary in nature.   It is the general obligation of the senior faculty to inform tenure-track faculty of their professional responsibilities, assist in their integration into the college and respective department/school, and advise them of the expectations for promotion, tenure, and contractual renewal.

Candidates for promotion, tenure, and/or contractual renewal are responsible for familiarizing themselves with policies and procedures, and gathering and submitting materials as outlined in these documents as appropriate.

Overview of Procedures for Annual Contractual Renewal and Post-Tenure Review

Full-time faculty members in the College of Visual and Performing Arts generally fall into one of five categories: a) Instructors, who are in temporary, one or two-year appointments; b) tenure-track faculty; c) Teaching Professors; d) Professors of Practice; and e) tenured faculty members. Annual contractual renewal applies to all but the tenured faculty members, but in slightly different ways to each group. Tenured faculty, who hold permanent appointment, are subject to post-tenure review instead of contractual renewal. Annual reviews for continuing full-time faculty members may be used to inform merit salary considerations.

Instructors are not subject to review and contractual renewal if on a single-year appointment.  If on a multi-year appointment, their performance is reviewed and a recommendation is made with regard to continuation of their existing appointment.

Tenure-track faculty receive an initial three-year appointment, with an annual performance review and recommendation in years one and two, followed by a more extensive third-year review.  A successful third-year review typically results in a second three-year appointment, with annual performance review and recommendation in years four and five, and the tenure review in year six.  For exceptions, see the section on Third-Year Review below.

Teaching professors and professors of practice typically receive an initial three-year appointment, with an annual performance review and recommendation each year.  In the spring of the final year of the appointment, the review typically results in renewal (a new three-year appointment), assuming the teaching need remains and strong performance continues on the part of the faculty member. Appointments of Professors of Practice are for periods of no more than five years and are renewable.

Tenured faculty hold permanent appointment, and therefore are not subject to contractual renewal.  For purposes of merit salary consideration, their performance is reviewed each year.

SPECIFIC PROCEDURES: Tenure-Track Faculty

I. Yearly Progress Reviews and Contractual Renewals during the Probationary Period

During the six-year probationary period, the candidate’s progress toward tenure will be reviewed each year in the areas of teaching and advising, creative/scholarly activities, and service. Teaching and advising will be given at least equal weight with creative/scholarly activities. Appropriateness of progress affects judgments of merit. A copy of the Annual Report and Recommendations on Non-Tenured Faculty (ARR) is available on the Provost’s website.

II. Expectations

As a research university, Syracuse University expects that faculty members will be actively engaged in an intellectual and creative life that enhances the knowledge base or otherwise extends the boundaries in their chosen areas of concentration.  The University also has a tradition of permitting various allocations of effort across research and teaching.  Schools and Colleges are expected to provide guidelines to all faculty regarding allocations of effort. In particular, Schools and Colleges must provide guidelines for those individuals whose teaching, research, and service do not sharply divide into distinct categories so that they can present integrated dossiers and accounts of activities.  In VPA, the unit’s document on evidences for tenure and promotion should be provided to faculty members at the time of hire by the chair or director.

There are three kinds of reviews involving tenure-track faculty: annual, third-year, and sixth-year (tenure).

III. Annual Reviews: Years One and Two

Tenure-track faculty are normally given an initial three-year contract that takes them through the Third-Year Review.  Thus, the purpose of the annual review process in years one and two is to affirm that appropriate progress is being made.  

  1. During the candidate’s first and second years they will undergo what are termed “Annual Reviews: Years One and Two.” In years one and two, the candidate’s department chair and department tenure committee evaluate the candidate’s performance in the areas of teaching and advising, creative/scholarly activities, and service, according to the unit’s written evidences for promotion to associate professor with tenure.
  2. The candidate will receive a summary narrative from the department chair/director that evaluates the candidate’s performance in the areas of teaching and advising, creative/scholarly activities, and service, both from the perspective of the tenure committee and of the chair/director.
  3. The information that forms the basis for the narrative will be taken from the candidate’s annual Curriculum Vitae Update Form and its supporting documents supplied by the candidate, which may include any of the following as appropriate to the candidate’s specific discipline and the unit’s written evidences for tenure and promotion:
  4. Courses taught
  5. Indicators of course preparation (course syllabi, assignments, instructional development)
  6. New courses introduced
  7. Other teaching and administrative activity (instructional resources management, invited lectures, master classes, workshops, independent study, internships, experience credit)
  8. Graduate committees (thesis advisor, thesis committee, comprehensive examination committee chair or member, dissertation committee, dissertation advisor)
  9. Course evaluations, peer evaluations, personal statement of effectiveness as teacher and advisor
  10. Advising load (undergraduate, graduate, mentoring), advising materials, advising assessments
  11. Publication of scholarly work (books, chapters, refereed journals, materials in press, material under revision, material under review)
  12. Publication of creative work (print and broadcast, collateral, exhibitions)
  13. Conference papers (competitively selected, invited)
  14. Citation index
  15. Exhibitions (invited, juried)
  16. Awards (grants, fellowships, honors)
  17. Works in progress (subject with stage of completion and departmental evaluation and sponsorship and estimated date and place of exhibition, performance or publication)
  18. Service, including committee service (department/area, college, University), faculty mentoring (official, unofficial), facilities management, professional associations (offices held, editorial boards), community activity associated with professional work, and other community activity
  19. Other materials demonstrating the candidate’s progress
  20. The department’s narrative should make explicit references to the data supplied by the candidate (with sensitivity for the need to maintain confidentiality) and the standards by which data are evaluated.
  21. The candidate should include a brief forecasting statement of goals and objectives for the next year.
  22. The assessment contains specific references to accomplishments, reservations, and/or stipulations relating to each of the areas. Each assessment will include one of the following recommendations:
  23. Continue in current appointment with recognition of the following accomplishment(s);
  24. Continue in current appointment with recognition of the following accomplishment(s), reservation(s), and stipulation(s);
  25. The assessment is recorded and placed in the candidate’s file. The file is open for examination by the candidate.
  26. The candidate is apprised of the department’s assessment by the department chair/director in personal consultation.
  27. The assessment is forwarded to the dean of the college, who, after appraising it includes comments and forwards it (with comments) to the office of vice chancellor for academic affairs. In the event that revisions are recommended because of irrelevant, inappropriate or inadequate comments, no changes in the assessment can be made without notifying the department chair/director and candidate.
  28. If the candidate dissents from the department/school’s appraisal of progress, resolution is sought in conference with the department chair/director.
  29. Failure to reach agreement permits the candidate to appeal to the dean of the college.
  30. If resolution is not reached with the dean and the candidate, the differences of opinion are attached, in writing, to the assessment and forwarded to the vice chancellor for academic affairs.
  31. In the spring semester of Year Two, the candidate is informed by the department chair/director that they should begin preparing a more comprehensive set of materials for the Third-Year Review.

 IV. Third-Year Review

The third-year review is considered a dress rehearsal for the candidate’s sixth-year review. It provides the candidate with the opportunity of presenting a cumulative index of their progress toward tenure and to receive comprehensive feedback on their performance during three years of employment in the department. It is also the point at which the department/school determines that the candidate is making sufficient progress, thus enabling a recommendation for a new three-year appointment to take the candidate to the Sixth-Year Review (Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor). If sufficient progress is not being made, the Third-Year Review recommendation will make that clear and will provide the candidate with detailed feedback as to what is necessary to increase the likelihood of a successful Sixth-Year (tenure) review.

  1. The candidate will receive a summary narrative from the department chair/director that evaluates the candidate’s performance in the areas of teaching and advising, creative/scholarly activities, and service, both from the perspective of the tenure committee and of the chair/director.
  2. The information that forms the basis for the narrative will be taken from data supplied by the candidate, including the following as appropriate to the candidate’s position within the college:
    1. Required and elective courses taught (over five previous semesters)
    2. New courses introduced and taught
      1. Evidence of teaching effectiveness:
      2. Course evaluations, syllabi, course materials, and letters from matriculated students, graduated students, and colleagues.
      3. Material to be requested by department chair/director in consultation with candidate
      4. Material and data to be collated by department chair’s/director’s office
      5. Material and data to be representative of work for the last five semesters
  1. Other teaching and administrative responsibilities
  2. Committee service

    1. Department/school

    2. College

    3. University

  3. Evidence of advising effectiveness:
      1. Advisement loads
      2. Advisement activities, advising materials, advising assessments, and letters from matriculated students and graduated students.
        1. Material to be requested by department chair/director in consultation with candidate
        2. Material and data to be collated by department chair’s/director’s office
        3. Material and data to be representative of work for the last five semesters
  4. Programs and/or projects developed:

    1. Personal statement justifying present and future value to department/area and college

    2. Statement on plans for development of future courses, projects, and programs with explanation of value to department/area and college

  5. Exhibition, performance, or publication record. Material representative of the body of work may also be submitted by the candidate.
  6. Involvement in professional organizations.
  7. The yearly departmental contract renewal summary narratives. There should be a total of two summary narratives for each candidate, one narrative per each of the two preceding years.
  8. Comprehensive curriculum vitae

The data supplied by the candidate should span the candidate’s first two and one-half years of employment in the department. It should also be understood that the use of formal external peer reviews (required for sixth-year review) is not required for the third- year review. Such reviews are not precluded, but their use must be agreed upon by both the candidate and the department. There may be unusual circumstances, e.g., where tenured faculty in a department lacks expertise in a specific or emerging area of specialization, in which it may be advisable to conduct external peer reviews.  In cases where external reviews are used, please consult the document “Policies and Procedures for Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure” for guidelines on soliciting external reviews.

  1. The department’s narrative should make explicit references to the data supplied by the candidate (with sensitivity for the need to maintain confidentiality) and the standards (evidences) by which the data are evaluated.
  2. The candidate should include a brief forecasting statement for the next three years.

Assessment for Third-Year Review

The assessment contains specific references to accomplishments, reservations, and/or stipulations relating to each of the areas. Each assessment will include one of the following recommendations:

  1. Continue to a new three-year appointment with recognition of the following accomplishment(s);
  2. Continue for one year with recognition of the following accomplishment(s), reservation(s), and stipulation(s);
  3. Terminate for the following reasons.
  4. The assessment is recorded and placed in the candidate’s file. The file is open for examination by the candidate.
  5. The candidate is apprised of the department’s assessment by the department chair/director in personal consultation.
  6. The assessment is forwarded to the dean of the college who, in turn, after appraising it, includes comments and brings it to the college tenure and promotion committee for discussion and written feedback on the organization and inclusion of an appropriate range of materials in the dossier. The tenure and promotion committee’s written feedback is then conveyed to both the candidate and the chairperson/director no later than the last day of the spring semester. In the event that revisions are recommended because of irrelevant, inappropriate or inadequate comments, no changes in the assessment can be made without notifying the department chair/director and candidate.
  7. If the candidate dissents from the department’s appraisal of progress, resolution is sought in conference with the department chair/director.
  8. Failure to reach agreement permits the candidate to appeal to the dean of the college

V. Annual Reviews: Years Four and Five

During the candidate’s fourth and fifth years they will undergo what are termed “Annual Reviews: Years Four and Five.” In years four and five, the candidate’s department chair/director and department tenure committee indicate their assessment of each non-tenured candidate’s progress toward tenure, according to the unit’s written evidences for promotion to associate professor with tenure.

  1. The candidate will receive a summary narrative from the department chair/director that evaluates the candidate’s performance in the areas of teaching and advising, creative/scholarly activities, and service, both from the perspective of the tenure committee and of the chair/director.
  2. The information that forms the basis for the narrative will be taken from the candidate’s annual Curriculum Vitae Update Form and its supporting documents supplied by the candidate, which may include any of the following as appropriate to the candidate’s specific discipline and the unit’s written evidences for tenure and promotion:
    1. Courses taught
    2. Indicators of course preparation (course syllabi, assignments, instructional development)
    3. New courses introduced
    4. Other teaching and administrative activity (instructional resources management, invited lectures, master classes, workshops, independent study, internships, experience credit)
    5. Graduate committees (thesis advisor, thesis committee, comprehensive examination committee chair or member, dissertation committee, dissertation advisor),
    6. Course evaluations, peer evaluations, personal statement of effectiveness as teacher and advisor
    7. Advising load (undergraduate, graduate, mentoring), advising materials, advising assessments
    8. Publication of scholarly work (books, chapters, refereed journals, materials in press, material under revision, material under review)
    9. Publication of creative work (print and broadcast, collateral, exhibitions)
    10. Conference papers (competitively selected, invited)
    11. Citation index
    12. Exhibitions (invited, juried)
    13. Awards (grants, fellowships, honors)
    14. Works in progress (subject with stage of completion and departmental evaluation and sponsorship and estimated date and place of exhibition, performance or publication)
    15. Service, including committee service (department/area, college, University), faculty mentoring (official, unofficial), facilities management, professional associations (offices held, editorial boards), community activity associated with professional work, and other community activity
    16. Other materials demonstrating the candidate’s progress
  3. The department’s narrative should make explicit references to the data supplied by the candidate (with sensitivity to the need to maintain confidentiality) and the standards by which the data are evaluated.
  4. The candidate should include a brief forecasting statement for the next year.

Assessment of Years Four and Five

The assessment contains specific references to accomplishments, reservations, and/or stipulations relating to each of the areas. Each assessment will include one of the following recommendations, depending upon the status of the candidate’s current one-year or three-year appointment:

One-Year appointment

If candidate currently holds a one-year appointment:

  1. Continue for one year with recognition of the following accomplishment(s);
  2. Continue for one year with recognition of the following accomplishment(s), reservation(s), and stipulation(s);
  3. Terminate for the following reasons.
Three-year Appointment

If the candidate currently holds a three-year appointment:

  1. Continue in current appointment with recognition of the following accomplishment(s);
  2. Continue in current appointment with recognition of the following accomplishment(s), reservation(s), and stipulation(s);
  3. The assessment is recorded and placed in the candidate’s file. The file is open for examination by the candidate.
  4. The candidate is apprised of the department’s assessment by the department chair/director in personal consultation.
  5. The assessment is forwarded to the dean of the college, who appraises it and forwards it with comments to the office of vice chancellor for academic affairs. In the event that revisions are recommended because of irrelevant, inappropriate or inadequate comments, no changes in the assessment can be made without notifying the department chair/director and candidate.
  6. If the candidate dissents from the department’s appraisal of progress, resolution is sought in conference with the department chairperson/director.
  7. Failure to reach agreement permits the candidate to appeal to the dean of the college.
  8. If resolution is not reached with the dean and the candidate, the differences of opinion are attached, in writing to the assessment and forwarded to the vice chancellor for academic affairs.

VI: Sixth-Year Review:

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.

Post-tenure review of faculty members should reflect this shift in expectations as well as any other expectations articulated in the specific academic unit’s written evidences for performance at the faculty member’s current rank.  Annual performance reviews are an essential aspect of the University’s merit-based salary adjustment process, and an important means of providing feedback about performance to faculty members, both pre- and post-tenure. Whereas the pre-tenure review process, described elsewhere in this document, involves review of performance by both the department/school tenure and promotion committee and the department chair/director, post-tenure reviews are primarily the responsibility of the department chair/director, as outlined below:

  1. The performance of all tenured faculty members 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, research/creative work, and service 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 performance evaluation 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.


  • No labels