Tenure & Promotion

Faculty Annual Evaluations

• Regular Faculty - Annual Merit and Evaluation Calendar

  2023 - 2024 Faculty Evaluation Calendar

  ---

  April Provost provides to academic deans, dean of libraries, and department chairs a list of faculty members in the respective departments who are in the penultimate year for tenure consideration.

  May Standing deadline for tenure-clock modification requests is the Monday after Spring commencement. 

  Apr-June Meetings held with potential candidates, Departmental Evaluation Panel chairs, and deans.

  August 7 Deadline for pandemic-based tenure-clock modification requests for 2023-2024 candidates.

  Aug 15* Chairs confirm list of candidates for tenure, promotion, third-year review, and senior-instructor renewal review with appropriate dean and Office of the Provost. Any faculty member seeking to undergo early review should request permission well in advance of this date.

  June-Aug Panel chairs initiate formation of Department Evaluation Panel(s); panel chairs solicit recent graduate surveys, external reviews of research (if used by department) and extra-departmental colleague letters.

  Sept 15 Candidates complete packets. 

  Oct 1 Evaluation panel chairs assure that all evaluation data have been collected and begin convening panels.

  Oct Departmental Evaluation Panels complete deliberations on tenure and promotion cases. Additional documentation may not be added to the candidate’s packet after the Department Evaluation Panel concludes its deliberations, and in no case may any information be added after November 1 for tenure and promotion cases. The only exceptions are as outlined in the FAM and the joint memo from the provost and Advisory Committee.

  Nov 1* Evaluation panel chairs present to appropriate dean(s) the results of their panel deliberations for tenure and promotion candidates and ensure that all materials/packets are accessible by the appropriate dean(s).

  Dec 1* Appropriate dean provides their recommendation in all tenure and promotion reviews to the provost and forwards any hard copy materials to a designated room for review by the Advisory Committee and the provost. The Office of the Provost ensures that the provost and appropriate Advisory Committee members have access to designated online packets.

  By Jan 15 Departmental Evaluation Panels complete deliberations on third-year-review cases. Additional documentation may not be added to the candidate’s packet after the Departmental Evaluation Panel concludes its deliberations, and in no case may any information be added after January 15 for third-year review cases. The only exceptions are as outlined in the FAM and the joint memo from the provost and Advisory Committee.

  Jan 15* Evaluation panel chairs present to appropriate dean(s) the results of their panel deliberations for third-year review cases and ensure that all materials/packets are accessible by the appropriate dean(s).

  Jan 15-31 Deans interview each third-year-review candidate.

  Feb 1* Deans provide their recommendations on third-year reviews to the provost.

  Dec-Feb The Advisory Committee and the provost review all tenure and promotion recommendations. When requested or when stipulated by the FAM, the Advisory Committee will also consider third-year-review cases.

  Feb 25 The Advisory Committee makes its tenure and promotion recommendations and third-year-review recommendations to the president and notifies each candidate in writing of the recommendation.

  March 1 The provost makes tenure and promotion recommendations and third-year-review recommendations to the president. All pertinent evaluation materials are sent to the president.

  March 15 The provost notifies each candidate in writing of the provost’s recommendation.

  March 15* President informs each candidate of the final presidential decision. March 15 or within two weeks of receipt of the recommendation.

  ---

  * Dates marked with an asterisk are required deadlines as delineated in the Faculty/Administration Manual. When any date falls on a weekend, the deadline will be the next business day after that date.

• Visiting and Adjunct Faculty - Annual Evaluation Calendar

  February

  Visiting and adjunct faculty members who have received written annual evaluations for a minimum of three consecutive years may request, in writing to their chair, that the rating received under their most recent full performance evaluation stand.

  Chair provides dean with list of faculty for whom s/he expects to allow previous performance evaluations to stand. Chair or dean may require that a faculty member undergo a full evaluation in any given year.

  February 21

  In the case of requests that a previous evaluation stand, the chair provides, in writing, approval of such request or denial of request with a brief explanation why a full evaluation will be conducted.

  March 1

  Faculty members undergoing a full performance evaluation submit materials, as outlined in Faculty/Administration Manual, Provost’s memo dated April 30, 2015, and any departmental or school guidelines. Faculty members for whom a previous annual evaluation will stand provide Chair an updated curriculum vitae and any further information that is appropriate.

  By April 15

  Chair provides annual evaluation to Dean for review.

  By April 30

  Chair or Dean of Libraries conducts interview with faculty member, if appropriate.

  Chair or Dean of Libraries provides faculty member with a signed and dated annual evaluation.

  Within 10 working days of provision of written annual evaluation

  An adjunct or visiting faculty member wishing to appeal an annual evaluation and unable to reach a resolution with the Chair may appeal to the Dean by submitting a written request for an appeal hearing within 10 working days of provision of the written evaluation.

  By May 15

  Chair provides annual evaluation, signed by Chair and faculty member, to Dean for final review and signature.

  ---

  NOTE:
  ǂ When any date falls on the weekend, the deadline will be the next business day after that date.

• Adjunct and Visiting Faculty Evaluations Policy

  This can be found on the Faculty Policies Page.

  View the Policy
• Memo on Faculty Annual Evaluation Guidance Under the Pandemic

  TO: Deans and Chairs

  FROM: Suzanne Austin, EVP and Provost

  DATE: March 23, 2021

  RE: Guidance re Annual Faculty Evaluations

  ---

  The COVID-19 pandemic and associated public health measures have disrupted nearly every aspect of faculty life, including the ways in which we evaluate faculty. Reiterating the April 3, 2020 communication from then Interim Provost Fran Welch, I recognize that in addition to lessened time for scholarship due to fully online instruction, there are other substantial and continuing interruptions to faculty research, scholarship and creative activities, and professional development programs, including but not limited to curtailing of travel and data collection with human subjects; closure or inaccessibility of laboratories, archives, and field sites; and significantly delayed review processes at some journals and presses.

  Our annual evaluation and major review processes will need ongoing attention until the impacts of the pandemic and associated public health measures are behind us. That work began in early April 2020, with two communications from Dr. Welch, and continued with the 2020-2021 Joint Memo (issued originally on August 10, and subsequently with revisions on August 31). While there have been on-going conversations across our division regarding annual evaluations of faculty, this current memo is the first written divisional guidance on these evaluations, which serve a critical role in faculty development and major faculty reviews.

  Based on conversations with deans and some key academic leaders, I share with you these guidelines, which recognize the challenges that faculty members faced in 2020, provide guidance as our junior faculty colleagues progress towards major reviews, and ensure some degree of consistency across campus. These guidelines encourage faculty members to explain how the pandemic has affected their work, describe how they responded, and lay out some plans for the future.

  I recognize that the timing of this correspondence is not ideal but the conversations and concerns behind it are recent and on-going. I am requesting that deans work with department chairs in their schools: (1) to ensure that 2020 faculty annual evaluations honor these guidelines in principle, and (2) to communicate these guidelines to faculty colleagues in your schools.

  Teaching. The pandemic forced many faculty members to adapt their course(s) in a variety of ways, most notably by converting them to a new modality. These adaptations involved a level of effort that was similar to what a new preparation would require. Accordingly, faculty colleagues should be encouraged to describe in detail the work they undertook to adapt their course(s), including work undertaken in the summer of 2020. Similarly, department chairs and deans should recognize that some aspects of a course might not have gone as intended. Faculty members should be encouraged to acknowledge these challenges and explain how they plan to address them in the future.

  As usual, department chairs and deans are encouraged to use multiple means to evaluate teaching, with attention to the quality of course materials and engagement with students. Also, as a reminder, faculty members may choose whether to include the Spring 2020 full-term and Express II student course surveys in their evaluations. Furthermore, as Dr. Chris Korey and Dr. Kris De Welde have written, the College’s “‘pandemic pedagogy’ urge[d] faculty members to be available and responsive to students in a wide range of ways…and for concerns extending well beyond the course or curriculum.” As they suggest, faculty should be encouraged to describe these activities as well, and they should be evaluated as evidence of effective teaching.

  Research and Professional Development. Some faculty colleagues were able to make progress on their research, whereas others faced impediments – minor, moderate, or serious. Regardless, faculty members undergoing annual evaluation should be given the opportunity to explain any pandemic disruptions¹ to their own research program or creative activity. Those disruptions should be taken into account in the text portion of the annual evaluation. In many cases, it may also be appropriate for the faculty member to forgo an assignment of a summary rating for research. The choice to be “exempted” from a summary rating of research in 2020 may not be held against the faculty member in any subsequent major reviews. In all cases, chairs should also encourage faculty members to lay out a plan for their future research program or creative activity. As with a sabbatical proposal, these plans can and will change; the goal is to encourage faculty to think about their next steps.

  Service. In some cases, service obligations were greatly reduced or eliminated; in others, they substantially increased. In the latter case, faculty members should be encouraged to describe their service contributions rather than simply listing their formal service assignments. This approach will provide for a holistic review of service contributions, taking into account the different and less formal ways of contributing professional service during the pandemic.

  ---

  1 If the reasons for disruption are personal (such as increased childcare responsibilities), the faculty member need only provide a brief description of the reason, much as they did on their pandemic accommodation requests.

• Post-Tenure Review Calendar

  2022 - 2023 Post-Tenure Review Calendar

  ---

  May 15

  Provost provides written notification to Academic Deans, Dean of Libraries, and Department Chairs of faculty in the respective Departments who have served five years since their last institutional level review.

  September

  Department panel formation initiated by Academic Department Chair, if the Chair is up for post-tenure review.

  September 26

  Deadline for submission of requests for post-tenure review deferments to the Post-Tenure Review Committee.

  October 1

  Chairs confirm post-tenure review list to Academic Dean or Dean of Libraries and Provost and simultaneously indicate faculty requesting consideration for superior rating.

  ---

  For candidates seeking a superior rating:

  November 1

  Deadline for online submission of post-tenure review packets by candidates.

  November 15

  Department Chair or Panel Chair assures that all evaluation data have been collected.

  December 18

  Department Chair or Panel Chair informs the candidate of the departmental-level recommendation. Chair (or Panel Chair) notifies Dean via a letter justifying the chair (or panel) concurrence or failure to concur with the candidate’s self-evaluation, provides copy of the letter to the candidate, and ensures that the Dean has access to candidate’s online packet.

  January 10

  Deans forward recommendations to the Post-Tenure Review Committee and ensure that Committee has access to candidate online packet.

  No later than Feb.25 Post-Tenure Review Committee forwards its recommendations to the Provost.

  March 4

  The Provost may make a recommendation and will forward all recommendations to the President.

  March 15*

  By this date or within two weeks of receipt of all recommendations from the Provost, the President informs each candidate of the final presidential decision.

  ---

  For candidates not seeking a superior rating:

  By March 15*

  For candidates who have received one or more unsatisfactory ratings in teaching on prior annual evaluation(s) during the post-tenure review period, Department Chair completes current annual evaluation in accordance with annual evaluation guidelines and calendar.

  Department Chair (or Panel Chair) meets with faculty member to review his or her performance evaluations for the past six years, including any evaluation completed for the sixth year.

  Department Chair (or Panel Chair) meets with Dean and provides a statement that the candidate meets the criteria for a satisfactory post-tenure review rating or a brief written summary of the ratings received on annual performance evaluations in teaching and a statement that the candidate receives an unsatisfactory post-tenure review rating. A copy of this letter is provided to the candidate, Provost, and the Post-Tenure Review Committee by March 15*.

  Within 20 working days of any determination of an unsatisfactory post-tenure review rating*

  Departmental Panel is convened and submits a remediation plan, approved by the Dean, to the Post-Tenure Review Committee.

  Within 15 working days of receipt of any remediation plan*, the Post-Tenure Review Committee will approve, with or without modifications, the plan.

  Early April

  For faculty seeking a satisfactory rating who have not received any unsatisfactory ratings in teaching on prior annual evaluations during the post-tenure review period, Department Chair (or Panel Chair) meets with faculty member to review his or her performance evaluations for the past six years, including any evaluation completed for the sixth year.

  Following discussion with the faculty member, Chair will discuss his or her overall summary of candidate’s annual performance evaluations with the Dean and will provide a written statement that candidate meets the criteria for a satisfactory posttenure review rating.

  ---

  Note: When any date falls on the weekend, the deadline will be the next business day after that date.

  *Dates marked with an asterisk are required deadlines as delineated in the Faculty/Administration Manual.