Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion Criteria and the Criteria and Processes Relating to Other Faculty Personnel Actions

The Department of English expects all full-time TT faculty to be active as scholars or creative artists and to make significant contributions to the University community in the area of service. The production and dissemination of high-quality scholarship or creative work that is recognized by peer review, the application of scholarship in and through teaching, and appropriate activity as a University citizen constitute the essential performance expectations for reappointment, tenure, and promotion throughout each faculty member’s career. The Department recognizes that publication may be realized through collaborative projects, joint-authored work, and single-authored work.

To gain assistance in making the best possible case for reappointment, tenure, and promotion, each candidate is encouraged to consult often and early with senior colleagues in the Department, especially those in related scholarly areas, and with the Department Chair about the preparation and presentation of the documentation.

The emergence of a national reputation within one’s chosen subfield of the discipline is essential for tenure and for promotion to ranks above that of assistant professor at the Kent Campus. Thus for tenure and for promotion to associate professor and full professor, the Department requires external evaluation of scholarship or creative activity by nationally recognized scholars or creative artists who may speak to the candidate’s record and standing in the field. All such reviews will require a minimum of four letters from external evaluators. (N.B. When a candidate is being reviewed simultaneously for tenure and promotion, the same letters may serve for both reviews.) After discussion with the Department Chair, the candidate will supply the Chair with a ranked list of at least three persons to contact to serve in this capacity. Three of the reviewers will be chosen from the candidate’s list; the Chair also will select one or more additional reviewers without consultation with the faculty member, who then will be informed of the identity of the persons selected prior to the solicitation of the evaluation.

The Chair may also seek additional information and material that bears upon the candidate’s qualifications and performance. Such materials may include additional teaching evaluations, other evidence of instructional performance, or additional evaluations of scholarship or creative activity. The candidate shall be notified of, and given the opportunity to review, such new material as is added to the file and also provided with the opportunity to include written comments relevant to this material and/or the appropriateness of its inclusion in the file.

Faculty on all campuses will be held to the same standard of quality in all performance reviews. In recognition of the mission of the Regional Campus system and of the different teaching responsibilities of regional faculty, the teaching and University service will be weighed more heavily in reappointment and tenure reviews and in review for promotion to associate professor than in such reviews for Kent Campus faculty.

Decisions regarding tenure and promotion for all faculty members who are appointed to a tenure-track position for academic year 2010-11 or later will be governed by this policy and the unit handbook in place at the time of the initial appointment. Faculty members who were appointed prior to the adoption of this policy may elect to be governed by this policy and the current unit handbook or by the University policies and procedures regarding faculty tenure and promotion and the handbook in place at the time of the faculty member’s initial appointment. The faculty member will include a written election of this option in his/her file.

Reappointment Criteria, Full-Time TT Faculty

The fundamental criterion for reappointment is that the candidate should be deemed to have made satisfactory progress toward tenure. Progress is to be judged relative to the number of years of service of the candidate. In other words, expectations increase as the candidate approaches the tenure review year.

For candidates on the traditional tenure clock for Assistant Professors the reappointment review after completion of three full years of service at Kent State is particularly critical. In the scholarship of teaching, by the beginning of the fourth year of service all probationary faculty, Kent and Regional, must present positive peer evaluations, following guidelines in Section 2.G.1 of this handbook, and good scores on the Student Surveys of Instruction. By the beginning of the fourth year of service Kent Campus faculty must present an active research program, demonstrated by some accepted or published peer-reviewed articles and conference presentations, or a book manuscript in the final stages of preparation for submission to a publisher. Regional Campus faculty are expected to present by the time of the fourth year an active research program, demonstrated by such evidence as submissions to refereed journals, conference presentations, and an accepted or published article.

Candidates for reappointment are strongly encouraged to consult annually with the Department Chair as they prepare and submit their reappointment files. The candidate will develop the reappointment file over time as the basis of the tenure and initial promotion review file. Specific guidelines for the preparation of the file are found in the instructions issued each August by the Office of the Provost. Reappointment reviews are conducted annually in the early part of the fall semester, except in the case of those in the first year of appointment, when review takes place in the spring semester of the first year.

As part of the review process, the Chair consults with the Ad hoc Reappointment Committee, and then writes an independent recommendation on reappointment. The Committee also votes on reappointment, recommending reappointment (without reservations), reappointment with reservations about progress toward tenure, or against reappointment. The Chair will provide a written statement on progress to candidates at this time, and will record in his or her recommendation the Committee’s vote. Candidates for reappointment may review comments made by faculty regarding their progress toward tenure. To this end, the Chair will copy for the faculty member the committee’s signed evaluation forms and will invite the candidate to meet with him or her to discuss progress, with particular attention given to areas in need of improvement.

Tenure and Promotion Criteria, Full-Time TT Faculty

Evaluation of Scholarship and Creative Activity for Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor

The award of academic tenure requires that candidates shall have made substantial impact upon their chosen subfield within the discipline and that they have achieved success in teaching, as demonstrated by means of the evidences detailed below and by external evaluations. While faculty interests may develop in new and appropriate directions, the Department expects that faculty will make significant contributions as scholars or creative artists and as teachers that are relevant to the initial appointment.

For tenure the faculty member must meet the criteria for an “Excellent” rating in either scholarship or teaching with at least a “Good” rating in the other category. University service must at least meet the minimum Department criteria as outlined in Table 3. These same categories and assessment tools apply for promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor.

Table 1.A. Kent Campus: Evaluation Components for Assessment of Scholarship for Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor.

Evaluation	Definition	Evidence
Excellent	Nationally/Internationally recognized scholarship/creative activity	One refereed book or 6 refereed articles/chapters¹ and at least one of the following: funded grant ²or additional refereed publications, editorship of a journal, book series, or collection; 3 review articles, book reviews, national/international conference papers, or invited presentations.
Good	Emerging nationally recognized research/creative program	Refereed book or 6 refereed articles/chapters.
Marginal	Active research program	Some refereed articles/chapters and conference papers.
Inadequate	Limited research program	Works-in-progress and submissions to refereed articles/chapters.
Poor	No research program	No submissions.

Note: definitions in footnotes below refer to the meaning of “publications,” “grants,” and “recognition” in Table 1 A.

¹Candidates for tenure on the Kent Campus are expected to have developed a sustained and focused research or creative program in their chosen subfield(s), typically evidenced by publication of a scholarly or creative book authored by the candidate or a minimum of six substantial peer-reviewed pieces in scholarly or creative venues appearing in standard bibliographies, where available, in the subfield(s). Evaluation of publication record will include an assessment of quality and impact on the field, as measured by the standing of the press or journal, as well as quantity. Only work that has been published or formally accepted for publication can be considered for tenure and promotion. A book contract or conditional acceptance of a manuscript will not be considered as evidence of scholarly achievement in tenure and promotion reviews. Critical editions with introductory material, notes, and textual apparatus will be considered the equivalent of a single-authored critical work; other editorial work, such as editing a learned journal, special issues of learned journals, or collections of essays, will be weighted according to the scholarly contributions of the editor. Multiple-authored works will be weighted according to the scholarly contribution of the candidate.

²“Grants” refer to extramural funding, where the role of the faculty member in securing the funding is clearly demonstrated, to support activities related to research (e.g., NEH, ACLS) or teaching (e.g., Fulbrights, FIPSE Grants).

Table 1.B. Regional Campuses: Evaluation Components for Assessment of Scholarship for Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor.

Evaluation	Definition	Evidence
Excellent	Sustained and focused research/creative program	Three refereed articles/chapters¹ and at least one of the following: funded grant ² or additional refereed publications or editorship of a journal, book series, or collection; 3 review articles, book reviews, conference papers, invited presentations.
Good	Active research/creative program	Three refereed articles/chapters.
Marginal	Limited research program	A publication and submissions of articles/chapters.
Inadequate	Emerging research program	Submissions
Poor	No research program	No submissions.

Note: definitions in footnotes below refer to the meaning of “publications,” “grants,” and “recognition” in Table 1 B.

¹Candidates for tenure on Regional Campuses are expected to maintain scholarly or creative activity in their chosen subfield(s) in the discipline, typically evidenced by a minimum of three substantial peer-reviewed publications in scholarly or creative venues appearing in standard bibliographies, where available, in the subfield(s). Evaluation of publication record will include an assessment of quality and impact on the field, as measured by the standing of the press or journal, as well as quantity. Only work that has been published or formally accepted for publication can be considered for tenure and promotion. A book contract or conditional acceptance of a manuscript will not be considered as evidence of scholarly achievement in tenure and promotion reviews. Critical editions with introductory material, notes, and textual apparatus will be considered the equivalent of a single-authored critical work; other editorial work, such as editing a learned journal, special issues of learned journals, or collections of essays, will be weighted according to the scholarly contributions of the editor. Multiple-authored works will be weighted according to the scholarly contribution of the candidate.

²“Grants” refer to extramural funding, where the role of the faculty member in securing the funding is clearly demonstrated, to support research activities or teaching (e.g., Fulbright awards).

Evaluation of Teaching

Every candidate for Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor on both Kent and Regional Campuses is expected to demonstrate success in teaching. Successful teaching in the graduate programs normally is also a prerequisite, when such instruction is relevant to the appointment.

Evidence of successful teaching may be presented in the following forms (those marked with an asterisk are mandatory):

Representative syllabi, examinations, handouts, and other teaching materials*
Peer reviews over the course of the probationary period* [See department policy statement on peer evaluation of teaching in Section 2 G.1]
Student evaluations (including the University SSI summary sheets and student comments) which typically meet or exceed the norms for the courses*
Informal evaluations of teaching
Service on graduate examination, thesis, and dissertation committees
Documentation of student success (such as prizes won, publications, career placements, etc.)
Curriculum development and revision
Use of digital technology
Invited lectures and readings
Awards and prizes
Evidence of integration of current scholarship or creative work in the field in classroom instruction
Evidence of participation in other teaching development activities (such as teaching circles and teaching pairs, or by engaging in peer reviews of colleagues)

The three mandatory sources for documenting success for personnel decisions—numerical data from SSIs, discursive comments from SSIs, and peer evaluation of teaching—will be used together to make a determination that a candidate has demonstrated success in teaching. While individual components of numerical data like the relationship of individual student response to departmental means and standard deviations could be used to indicate patterns and trends of a candidate’s strengths and weaknesses, no single source of data will be used in making decisions about a candidate’s teaching success. Instead, all three data sources will be considered in determining teacher success for personnel decisions.

Criteria for the evaluation of the teaching are listed in Table 2. Course development is defined as creating a new course, adding distance learning options, adapting course to new learning environments or technologies, etc.

Table 2. Evaluation Components for Assessment of Teaching for Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor.

Evaluation	Definition	Examples of Accomplishments Corresponding to the Assessment Score
Excellent	Innovative teacher; provides leadership in instructional development	Development of courses, research opportunities for students (undergraduate and/or graduate); consistent pattern of success evidenced in student and peer evaluations; instructional creativity; leading curricular initiatives; teaching awards
Good	Successful teacher	Consistent pattern of success evidenced in student and peer evaluations; model teaching materials; participation in departmental curricular reviews or initiatives
Marginal	Inconsistent teacher	Inconsistent pattern of effectiveness evidenced in student and peer evaluations; adequate teaching materials
Inadequate	Substandard teacher	Consistent pattern of lack of success evidenced in student and peer evaluations; substandard teaching materials
Poor	Ineffective teacher	Consistent pattern of lack of success evidenced in student and peer evaluations, substandard teaching materials; pattern of complaints

Evaluation of University Service

Faculty under review for tenure shall have a record of substantial University service, particularly in the Department (and, when appropriate, the Regional Campus). University service comprises activities not necessarily tied to one’s special field of knowledge but which make significant positive contributions to the advancement of the educational, scholarly, and governance goals and missions of the University, College, campus, unit, or community. Service may be demonstrated in a variety of ways, such as serving on and chairing committees, advising students, serving on advisory boards, and engaging in service-related grant activities. Service will be evaluated not only in terms of quantity but of quality.

Table 3. Assessment of University Service for Promotion and Tenure

Service Assessment	Examples of Accomplishments Corresponding to the Assessment Score
Exceeds obligations	Significant role in Department, Campus College and/ or University as evidenced by productive service on committees, active participation in significant events, effectively chairing committees, specific administrative assignments, meaningful public outreach
Meets obligations	Meets the minimal Department/Campus obligations of service on Departmental, Campus, and University Committees
Does not meet obligations	Fails to fulfill committee and other formal service obligations

Criteria for Promotion to Full Professor

Promotion to the rank of Full Professor normally is reserved for faculty who, as scholars or creative artists, have made a substantial impact upon their chosen subfield within the discipline and further have achieved national standing in the profession beyond that achieved at the time of promotion to associate professor. This standing is typically evidenced by the publication since the last promotion of a second scholarly or creative book authored by the candidate or a minimum of six substantial peer-reviewed pieces in scholarly or creative venues appearing in standard bibliographies, where available, in the subfield(s). Evaluation of publication record will include an assessment of quality and impact on the field, as measured by the standing of the press or journal, as well as quantity. A candidate for promotion to Full Professor must achieve “excellent” ratings in Scholarship and Teaching, as demonstrated by means of the evidences detailed in Tables 1. A and 2 above. Candidates for promotion to Full Professor are evaluated solely on the basis of performance since attaining the rank of Associate Professor, or, for those whose initial appointment at Kent State was at that rank, since employment at 5X��.
Renewal of Appointment and Third-year Full Performance Reviews of Full-Time Non-Tenure Track (NTT) Faculty
Renewal of Appointment

Appointments for full-time non-tenure track (NTT) faculty are governed by the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement and are made annually. Renewal of appointment is contingent upon programmatic need, satisfactory performance of previously assigned responsibilities, and budgeted resources to support the position.

Reappointment Review - First- and Second-Year NTT Faculty

All first- and second-year NTT faculty will submit review materials no later than February 15 of any academic year. Faculty in these years of appointment will be notified of any performance problems no later than April 15, in advance of the standard May 1 notification of reappointment. A Full Performance review, requiring the submission of a file, will take place in the third year of appointment and every third year thereafter.

Reappointment is based upon satisfactory performance of previously assigned responsibilities recorded in the workload statement of the faculty member. If the contract specifies that the candidate will have other, non-instructional responsibilities, or if the faculty member has been granted teaching load equivalencies for non-instructional activities, performance in those areas should figure in the evaluation. However, excellence in the instructional area is the most important factor in the review, no matter what the nature and extent of non-instructional activities.

First- and Second-Year Review Materials

The candidate will present the following materials for each annual review:

An up-to-date curriculum vitae.

A recent peer evaluation based on a class visit. The faculty member conducting the evaluation will be nominated by the candidate after consultation with the Chair or the Campus Dean.

Syllabi and other instructional materials for one class.

Student evaluations (SSI summary sheets and student comments) for all classes in the preceding semester, or for those faculty in the second or later years of appointment, the preceding two semesters.

First Full Performance Review

A member of the bargaining unit who has received appointments for three consecutive academic years will undergo a Full Performance Review during the third year of appointment. NTT Faculty standing for the First Full Performance review shall present review files to the Department Chair according to timelines released by the Office of Faculty Affairs. Faculty are encouraged to consult with the Department Chair about the contents of the file before submission. The Chair will make the files available to members of the Ad hoc FT-NTT Reappointment Committee, which shall be constituted in the same manner as the Ad hoc Reappointment Committee for full-time TT faculty, that is, comprised of all tenured members of FAC plus all tenured full professors not already on FAC, with the addition of one full-time NTT faculty member appointed by the Chair. The committee will review files, meet to discuss them, and vote to advise the Chair on a reappointment. The Chair will inform the candidate of the Committee vote and will make an independent recommendation to the College and/or Regional Campus Dean. The Chair will give a copy of his or her recommendation to the candidate and invite him or her to meet to discuss it.

A candidate who successfully completes the First Full Performance Review is eligible for appointment to a three-year term of annually renewable appointments which are conditional from year to year only upon continued satisfaction with demonstrated performance, continued programmatic and staffing need within the academic unit, and continued budgetary resources supporting the position.

Full Performance Review Files

The candidate will present the following materials for the first or a succeeding third-year review:

An up-to-date curriculum vitae.

Student evaluations (SSI summary sheets and student comments) from all classes taught at 5X�� during the preceding two and one-half years.

Syllabi and other instructional materials for one or more classes, including copies of representative marked student papers.

A peer evaluation based on class visits conducted by a team of two faculty members in accord with the department’s policy on peer evaluation for full-time and part-time faculty (Section 5).

Materials that bear upon assigned administrative or other responsibilities for which equivalencies are given.

A self-evaluation statement.

Other materials that may bear upon the evaluation of teaching performance, such as evidence of student achievement, analysis of student records, evidence of involvement in curricular development, etc.

In addition, the Department recognizes that significant aspects of instructional activity take place outside the classroom, and candidates are encouraged to include evidence of success in non-classroom teaching in the file.

Second Full Performance Review

Upon completion of a three-year term of annually renewable appointments following the First Full Performance Review, a candidate becomes eligible for consideration for another three-year term of annually renewable appointments based upon successful completion of a second Full Performance Review, following guidelines found above.

Performance Reviews after Two Full Performance Reviews and Nine Years of Consecutive Employment

After nine years of consecutive employment and every three years thereafter, candidates will undergo a performance review, following procedures and timelines released by the Office of Faculty Affairs.

Candidates for renewal will electronically submit the following materials:

A current curriculum vitae.

Summaries of SSI results.

A narrative of up to five pages describing professional activities over the past three years.

Academic Ranks

Members of the bargaining unit hold appointments at one of the following ranks:

Lecturer

Associate Lecturer

Senior Lecturer

Assistant Professor

Associate Professor

Professor

Academic ranks of Lecturer, Associate Lecturer, and Senior Lecturer are reserved for members of the bargaining unit who have not earned a terminal degree in their discipline, but whose professional experience and demonstrated performance warrant these ranks. Ranks of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor are reserved for those who have earned the terminal degree in their discipline and whose professional experience and demonstrated performance warrant these ranks.

Reconsideration of Rank

Bargaining unit members may request reconsideration of rank with each annual renewal of appointment if they believe they were hired at an inappropriate rank.

Promotion

During AY 2011-12, NTT colleagues who have completed 6 consecutive years of employment and 2 successful Full performance Reviews may apply for promotion at the time of their second Full performance Review or with any scheduled performance review thereafter. Guidelines for promotion files are detailed in the 2009 Collective Bargaining Agreement for Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Faculty, Addendum D. Promotion files must be submitted to the Dean, College of Arts and Sciences, by the second week of the spring semester in which the candidate is applying for promotion.

Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion Criteria and the Criteria and Processes Relating to Other Faculty Personnel Actions

Mailing Address