Section III.A.3: Procedures for Developmental Reviews - College of Arts and Sciences

The developmental review committee is responsible for providing advice to a reviewee about whether they are making appropriate progress toward meeting the CAS’s standards for tenure, and for recommending to the dean of the College whether a reviewee should receive an additional 3 year appointment. The sequence of steps in this evaluation is as follows:

1. The appropriate associate dean appoints a 3-person developmental review committee. The committee is chaired by the reviewee’s department chair. After consulting the dean of the College, the chair, and the reviewee, the associate dean will appoint two additional tenured faculty to the committee, one from outside the reviewee’s department but from within their division, and one from outside their division. The chair of the developmental review committee will consult with the other tenured members of the reviewee’s department to bring the departmental perspective to the committee. Whenever possible and appropriate, the members of a reviewee’s second developmental review committee will be the same as that of previous developmental review committee.
2. The reviewee prepares a file containing the following and submits it to the chair of the developmental review committee:
   
   1. current curriculum vitae,
   2. list of courses taught and student teaching evaluations for those courses (faculty may exclude evaluations for one course section during the review period),
   3. materials that allow an evaluation of the reviewee’s pedagogical approach, such as course syllabi, assignments, and exams,
   4. statement of teaching philosophy, which includes responses to any issues revealed in teaching evaluations, new strategies implemented as a result of attendance at teaching workshops and/or mini-courses, and future plans,
   5. narrative overview of the reviewee’s scholarly and/or creative work and of their future plans, explaining the place of the work in the reviewee’s discipline. The statement should be accessible to nonspecialists such as faculty members in other disciplines. The statement should also explain how the reviewee’s ongoing work differs from that pursued for their dissertation.
   6. statement of service contributions to the College and to the reviewee’s profession,
   7. copies of all publications, papers, abstracts, and performance and exhibit programs,
   8. any other material that the reviewee deems relevant, such as (i) evaluations of teaching by peers, former students, or alumni; (ii) peer reviews of the reviewee’s work; (iii) research grants and research proposals; (iv) work in progress; (v) letters from chairs of interdisciplinary programs in which the reviewee has participated.
3. The chair of the developmental review committee convenes a meeting of the committee to assess the materials in the file, to make a judgment about whether the faculty member under review is making satisfactory progress toward tenure, and to consider what advice to offer the reviewee. At each developmental review, the committee also makes a recommendation to the dean about whether the reviewee should be reappointed for another 3-year term. After reviewing the materials in the file, the committee may meet with the reviewee as part of the process. The developmental review committee then prepares a detailed written report for the associate dean, assessing the quality of the faculty member’s teaching, scholarly and/or creative activity, and service, and outlining the rationale for its recommendation.
4. Before the report is submitted to the associate dean, the reviewee receives a copy. The reviewee has a week to acknowledge to the chair in writing that they have read the report and to correct any factual errors it may contain. Their response and the committee’s report are then submitted to the associate dean. If the developmental review committee does not recommend reappointment, the reviewee shall be given 10 days to respond in writing to the chair, who submits the committee report and the reviewee’s letter to the associate dean.
5. The dean of the College, in consultation with the associate dean, evaluates the review materials and the report of the developmental review committee. The dean of the College writes a letter to the reviewee providing their own assessment of the reviewee’s progress and the decision whether to reappoint.

Back to Section III.A home