Info for:
Home/ Faculty Handbook/ Section V.A.2: Tenure-Track Assistant Professors - Promotion and Tenure Reviews and Developmental Reviews - Graduate School

Section V.A.2: Tenure-Track Assistant Professors - Promotion and Tenure Reviews and Developmental Reviews - Graduate School

II. Reviews for Tenure-Track Assistant Professors

  1. Initial appointments
    1. Any appointment without tenure to a position in which tenure may be granted is a tenure-track appointment. The probationary period for tenure-track positions is normally six years unless otherwise stated in the letter of appointment. A faculty member may request an early review for promotion or tenure with the approval of the dean of the Graduate School. Assistant professors are normally given annual appointments, with renewal of their appointment contingent on satisfactory performance.
    2. Hiring with tenure: In some instances, a potential new hire with tenure in their present position may request an expedited timeline for tenure review. In such cases, the search committee, dean, and department chair shall meet with the Graduate Faculty Promotion and Tenure Committee (GFPTC) to create a timeline for such review prior to the contract being issued. Typically, the timeline for review will fall into one of three general categories: (1) review prior to the employment start date; (2) review on an expedited time frame; or (3) review on the standard time frame. The department chair and GFPTC shall also determine the type of materials required to be equivalent to full review. In such cases, it shall be stated in the contract that awarding tenure will be contingent upon satisfactory tenure review. This policy regarding tenure review shall be shared with potential hires by the search committee.
    3. Promotion without tenure: In rare instances faculty may be appointed at the rank of associate professor or professor without tenure. In such instances, the schedule for review, including the promotion and tenure review, will be specified in the letter of appointment.
  2. Types of review: There are three types of review for assistant professors: annual review; developmental review; and review for promotion to the rank of associate professor with tenure.
  3. Annual Review
    1. Purpose: The purpose of the annual review is to provide formative assessment to assistant professors, directed at supporting progress toward successful review for promotion to associate professor with tenure.
    2. Schedule: Annual reviews occur in the first, second, fourth, and fifth years of service at the rank of assistant professor.
    3. Process: There are three steps in the process of annual review for assistant professors.
      1. Annual self-evaluation: Assistant professors produce an annual self-evaluation (elements described in GSEC policy handbook).
      2. Chair evaluation: The department chair produces a written evaluation and forwards this to the assistant professor and the GFPTC peer review team. The assistant professor may write a response, to be forwarded with the chair’s evaluation.
      3. GFPTC peer review: For this review, two GFPTC members will meet with the assistant professor at least twice during the course of the academic year and then produce a formative assessment of the faculty member’s progress toward tenure. The faculty member will have an opportunity to respond in writing to the GFPTC peer review. The chair’s evaluation, the GFPTC peer review, and the candidate’s response(s) (if present) are forwarded to the Dean and included in the faculty member’s personnel file, to be available in subsequent developmental and tenure reviews.
  4. Developmental Review
    1. Purpose of developmental reviews: The development review is a major review intended to provide assistant professors with an assessment of their progress toward promotion and tenure. The process is designed to meet the common goals of the faculty member, program, Graduate School, and College by identifying faculty strengths and suggesting areas for future development.
    2. Schedule for developmental reviews: Developmental reviews of tenure-track faculty members will typically be conducted during the third year. The dean will inform the candidate of the scheduled developmental review during the academic year preceding the scheduled review. The schedule for review will be provided to the candidate by the dean no later than the end of the preceding academic year.
    3. Developmental review process: The first level of review is conducted by the department chair; the GFPTC provides the second level; the dean provides the third.
      1. The candidate shall prepare a review file in a manner similar to that specified for the promotion and tenure review [see sections II.E (3), (4), (5), and (6) for standards, criteria, and evidence], with the exception that external reviews will not be solicited. The review file, which includes the candidate’s self-evaluation and GFPTC peer reviews (from the preceding two years), will be submitted to the department chair.
      2. The department chair then prepares a written report. The department chair has the option of soliciting additional information required to evaluate the candidate’s performance in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service. The department chair will inform the candidate of any formal requests for additional information.
      3. Before the report by the department chair is submitted to the GFPTC, the candidate shall have the opportunity to review the report. The candidate may submit within one week a written response to the GFPTC. The response will become part of the candidate’s review materials.
      4. The department chair submits the review file, additional materials, and a report reviewing the candidate to the GFPTC through the dean.
      5. Following its assessment and deliberation, the GFPTC submits to the dean the review file and its own report evaluating the candidate’s performance. This report shall include an evaluation of the progress being made toward tenure and promotion, and a recommendation regarding extension of the contract. A copy of this report shall be forwarded to the candidate.
      6. The candidate may request an additional review and consultation with the GFPTC.
      7. The dean shall review the faculty candidate’s file and all evaluations and recommendations. The dean shall send to the candidate a letter reviewing the candidate’s performance with appropriate recommendations.
    4. The developmental review will result in a recommendation as to whether the faculty member under review should be given a new appointment. In cases where a candidate is not offered a new appointment, the faculty member will normally be given a one-year terminal contract. The dean of the Graduate School, after consultation with the department chair, may approve a request by a faculty member to extend the probationary period by a maximum of one year, specifying a new schedule for review. Such approval will only be granted when it is clearly in the interest both of the Graduate School and of the faculty member, for example, when a faculty member has taken on a major short-term assignment or has taken a leave of absence for health or other personal reasons.
  5. Review for promotion to associate professor with tenure
    1. Purpose: This review serves to evaluate the faculty member’s performance for the purpose of granting promotion to the rank of associate professor with tenure. The granting of tenure requires successful contributions in each of the following three areas:
      1. Teaching: The candidate must demonstrate excellence in teaching. (See section 3 below.)
      2. Scholarship: The candidate must make significant contributions to scholarship through the development, application, or dissemination of knowledge that improves professional practice. (See section 4 below.)
      3. Professional and Institutional Service: The candidate must demonstrate evidence of consistent and valued contributions to the program, the Graduate School, professional associations, and the broader community. (See section 5 below.)
    2. Eligibility, timing, and schedule: Faculty members hired in a tenure-track position will normally be reviewed for tenure during the sixth year of service. Credit may be given for previous employment and eligibility for tenure review may be negotiated in the letter of appointment. Faculty members awarded tenure shall meet the standards articulated in sections (3), (4), and (5) below. The faculty member will be notified by the dean regarding eligibility for review by the end of spring semester of the academic year preceding the scheduled review.
    3. Standards, criteria, and evidence concerning teaching
      1. Standards for excellent teaching: Excellent teachers inspire and challenge their students, communicate their knowledge of the field, use appropriate teaching methods, and foster students’ intellectual growth.
      2. Criteria for excellent teaching
        1. Carefully plans and teaches well-organized courses; clearly states goals, objectives, and standards of student performance; and uses appropriate course materials.
        2. Maintains current knowledge of the field.
        3. Seeks to improve teaching techniques and performance.
        4. Provides accurate and timely academic advising.
        5. Actively involves students in the classroom learning experience.
        6. Regularly assesses student performance and apprises students of the results.
        7. Creates and maintains an atmosphere conducive to learning.
        8. Contributes to the development of curriculum.
        9. Provides assistance and supervision to students in field-based courses such as practica and internships.
        10. Encourages students to participate in joint scholarship projects.
        11. Maintains accessibility to students.
      3. Evidence of excellent teaching. The following materials will be included in the review file:
        1. A syllabus for each course taught that includes goals, readings, explication of written assignments, and methods of student evaluation.
        2. All student course evaluations obtained since the last promotion or since date of employment including those developed by the faculty member and a summary and interpretation of the evaluations.
        3. A narrative explaining teaching accomplishments and goals.
        4. A narrative describing advising responsibilities, and, where applicable, supervisory activities and accomplishments.
        5. Evidence from peers, colleagues in the field, past students, and others as appropriate.
        6. Other materials, such as letters, may also be included.
    4. Standards, criteria, and evidence concerning scholarship
      1. Standards for scholarship: Scholarship contributes to professional and disciplinary knowledge.
      2. Criteria for scholarship: Significant contributions to scholarship may include the following, with priority given to refereed work as well as some combination of lead- and co-authorship:
        1. Peer-reviewed publications, which include (i) articles published in peer- reviewed professional journals, and (ii) book chapters, and (iii) books published by presses that employ peer review.
        2. Invited chapters in edited volumes, articles in non-refereed journals that are recognized by peers as high-quality journals, articles in non-refereed regional journals, bulletins, or digital publications, and book reviews.
        3. Refereed presentations accepted at professional conferences represent contributions to knowledge in the field and demonstrate the status of work in progress. Invited presentations are also evidence of a candidate’s standing among peers. Solicited and evaluated consultations, competitively reviewed grants and contracts, presentations to professional colleagues and practitioners, and other professional engagements that apply knowledge to improve professional practice are likewise evidence of scholarly impact.
        4. Creative works (literary, theatrical, or artistic) clearly related to the candidate’s field of inquiry, scholarship and/or teaching.
        5. Engaged scholarship constitutes work conducted in collaboration with communities or organizations outside the college, or institutional scholarship completed within the college, such that a faculty member’s expertise and research are applied in a specific context to demonstrable effect. Evidence of engaged scholarship must include a detailed description of the work, a clear connection to the faculty member’s research agenda, and evidence of significant impact. The publication or dissemination of such reports, media coverage of these activities, and documents from community members that specify the candidate’s contribution will be considered as measures of impact. Any of the following that have been prepared by the candidate or with the candidate’s input are examples of evidence that may be submitted for the purpose of documenting engaged scholarship: technical or advisory reports; policy papers or recommendations; data gathered to evaluate a project’s outcomes; proposals for organizational change or restructuring; and significant changes in educational practice or clinical treatment based on the candidate’s work and participation.
        6. Grant submissions are considered evidence of engagement in the professional field. Successful grant applications are evidence of positive peer review and achievement.
        7. Scholarly work initiated since a candidate’s hire is an essential demonstration of the candidate’s ability to balance this work with teaching and performing service at all levels required for promotion and tenure. Publications of work initiated before the candidate’s time of hire are considered as part of the candidate’s scholarly output.
      3. Evidence of scholarship provided by candidate: Evidence of scholarly work provided by the candidate includes a narrative explaining past, current, and future work, highlighting major areas of interest, research, and particular challenges. In addition, evidence of scholarship provided by the candidate may include:
        1. Copies of books, chapters, and articles published or currently under review.
        2. Reviews of books or articles published.
        3. Presentations at professional conferences.
        4.  Evidence of engaged scholarship
        5. Grant proposals written, with reviewers’ comments. Information concerning grants awarded, denied, and pending.
        6. Professional communications and/or artifacts indicating the quality of the candidate’s research program, publications, presentations, invited consultation and/or engaged scholarship.
      4. Contribution of external reviewers: External reviewers provide an outside, professional assessment of the candidate’s scholarly work. (More on these letters in “Process of Review” for promotion to associate professor with tenure). External review letters are an important source of information about how the candidate’s scholarship and/or creative activity is viewed by the larger field. The department chair’s letter soliciting review letters of scholarship encourages reviewers to:
        1. Assess the quality and significance of the candidate’s work, and the importance of its contribution to the candidate’s discipline
        2. Compare the candidate’s work to that of peers in the field at a similar point in their career
        3. Assess whether the candidate’s work suggests a trajectory of continued accomplishment
        4. Assess the quality and significance of the outlets (journal articles, monographs, conference proceedings, book chapters, exhibition or performance venues, etc.) in which the candidate’s work has appeared, including relevant information about the nature of the peer review process those outlets employ
        5. Explain any disciplinary conventions that might differ from those in other fields.
      5. Questions guiding the GFPTC’s review of evidence of scholarship: The GFPTC will use the materials provided by the candidate and the external reviewers to answer the following questions about the candidate’s scholarship:
        1. What is the nature, extent, and quality of the candidate’s contribution to the discipline?
        2. How has the candidate’s scholarship moved beyond the dissertation to demonstrate the ability to initiate new work?
        3. In addition to completed and ongoing scholarly publication, how has the candidate been involved in other professional activities that provide evidence of the high regard professional peers have for the candidate’s work?
        4. What, if any, contextual or institutional challenges has the candidate faced in pursuing their program of research?
        5. To what extent is there a clear trajectory of scholarly accomplishment that demonstrates a strong likelihood of continuing into the future?
    5. Standards, criteria, and evidence concerning professional and institutional service
      1. Standards for service: Faculty members are expected to contribute actively to their department, the Graduate School, the College, their professional associations, and the broader community.
      2. Criteria for service: A candidate’s service should include regular participation on at least one standing or ad hoc committee of the Graduate School or the College during each year of their appointment. It should include assuming responsibilities in support of the candidate’s program and department as well as the Graduate School and the College. Participation in program development and accreditation processes is also expected.
        In addition, candidates should participate in service related activities in their professional organizations and their community.

        Service may include various forms of leadership, including making substantial and ongoing contributions to the operation and development of a program, department, the Graduate School, or College. Examples of this service include, but are not limited to, serving as program director, clinical coordinator, department chair, or related leadership role. Leadership may also include developing new programs or undertaking significant changes in an existing program.

        Leadership is a distinct form of service and should be recognized as an essential and unique aspect of our professional work in the Graduate School, particularly when pre‑tenure faculty undertake such work.
      3. Evidence of professional and institutional Service
        1. A narrative explaining the significance of one’s service contributions to the department, the Graduate School, the College, professional associations, and the broader community. Wherever appropriate, the narrative shall include a description of the candidate’s accomplishments related to assigned departmental responsibilities, developing and maintaining ties with professional associations, and curriculum or program development and leadership.
        2. Letters of testimony indicating the significance of the faculty review candidate’s service contributions.
        3. Editorial and review responsibilities.
    6. Process of review for promotion to associate professor with tenure
      1. The candidate prepares a review file including: a self-evaluation letter, annual reviews by the department chair, GFPTC peer reviews, all reports from the developmental review, and supplemental materials addressing the three areas of review. [See Section (7) iii, below, on candidate responsibilities.]
      2. A mutually agreed upon list of at least nine potential external reviewers will be generated by the candidate, the department chair, a GFPTC peer reviewer selected by the candidate, and the dean of the Graduate School. The department chair and GFPTC peer reviewer selected by the candidate, in consultation with the dean of the Graduate School, determine the short list of external reviewers who will be asked to review the candidate’s materials.
      3. The department chair and GFPTC peer reviewer selected by the candidate shall consult with the candidate regarding which materials to send to external reviewers. These materials may include samples of scholarly work, the candidate’s curriculum vitae, and a statement from the faculty candidate. A cover letter from the department chair should describe the purpose of the review and the fact that the letter and its author will remain confidential. A sufficient number of reviewers should be contacted so that a minimum of four reviews are received.
      4. The department chair and GFPTC peer reviewer selected by the candidate may obtain additional information from colleagues within and outside the College and from scholar-reviewers and others, as necessary, to evaluate teaching, scholarship, and service. The candidate will be informed regarding the areas in which information is being formally requested.
      5. The department chair reviews the candidate’s file, including program and external letters, writes an independent report, and forwards these materials to the GFPTC through the office of the dean of the Graduate School. Before the report by the department chair is submitted to the GFPTC, the candidate shall have the opportunity to review the report. The candidate may offer corrections of any errors and may submit, within one week, a written response to the GFPTC, which will become part of the candidate’s review materials.
      6. Following their individual assessments and deliberations, the GFPTC makes a recommendation in writing and submits it to the dean. A copy of the GFPTC recommendation shall be sent simultaneously to the candidate. The candidate may submit within one week a written response to the GFPTC. The response will become part of the candidate’s review materials.
      7. The Graduate School dean makes a recommendation in writing to the president of the College. A copy of this recommendation shall be sent simultaneously to the candidate and to the GFPTC.
      8. Final decisions regarding matters of promotion or tenure rest with the president of the College.
    7. Responsibilities in the review process: The first level of review is conducted by the department chair; the GFPTC provides the second level; the dean provides third; the president of the College provides the fourth level of review and the final decision regarding promotion and tenure.
      1. The dean shall:
        1. Prepare the schedule for review.
        2. Notify faculty members in writing of their eligibility for promotion and for tenure by the end of the spring semester of the academic year prior to the review.
        3. Assure that the GFPTC is in place.
        4. Consult with the candidate, department chair, and the GFPTC peer reviewer selected by the candidate in the process of generating a list of potential external reviewers who have expertise in the candidate’s field. This list shall be of sufficient length to assure an adequate number of agreed-upon reviews and to protect the anonymity of the selected reviewers.
        5. Reach consensus with the department chair and GFPTC peer reviewer selected by the candidate regarding the final selection of external reviewers from the list of potential reviewers.
        6. Serve as a non-voting member of the GFPTC.
        7. Review the file and the report of the GFPTC and write an evaluation and recommendation, including rationale.
        8. Submit the dean’s and the GFPTC’s written evaluations and recommendations, along with the candidate’s review file, to the president of the College. If the dean’s recommendation dissents from the GFPTC recommendation, he or she must present a written report and discuss the nature of the dissent and its rationale with the members of the GFPTC, prior to forwarding these materials to the president.
        9. Notify the candidate of the GFPTC’s and the dean’s recommendations. The candidate shall have the opportunity to read and respond in writing to the department chair’s report, the GFPTC report, and the dean’s report. A candidate wishing to respond to a report must submit a response within one week from receiving a copy of the report. The response will become part of the review materials.
      2. The department chair shall:
        1. Work collaboratively with the candidate, the GFPTC peer reviewer selected by the candidate, and the dean of the Graduate School, to generate the extensive list of potential external reviewers.
        2. Consult with the candidate to decide which scholarly materials are to be sent out for review.
        3. In consultation with the GFPTC peer reviewer selected by the candidate and the dean of the Graduate School, select the external reviewers to be contacted. Personally contact reviewers from the approved list and send the materials selected for review to those reviewers who are willing to review the candidate’s work. These letters and their authors shall be designated as confidential and are not to be seen by the candidate.
        4. Reach consensus with the candidate and GFPTC peer reviewer selected by the candidate regarding the final selection of external reviewers from the list of potential reviewers.
        5. With the GFPTC peer reviewer selected by the candidate, solicit additional information as deemed necessary to evaluate teaching, scholarship, and/or service.
        6. Write a letter of recommendation for the granting of tenure or promotion based on specific evidence and provide a copy of this to the candidate.
        7. Review and forward the file to the GFPTC through the office of the dean.
      3. The candidate shall:
        1. Prepare the review file. [See Standards, Criteria and Evidence for Teaching, II.E (3); Scholarship, II.E (4); and Service, II.E (5)].
        2. Participate in generating a list of potential reviewers with the department chair, the GFPTC peer reviewer selected by the candidate, and the dean of the Graduate School.
        3. In consultation with the department chair, the GFPTC peer reviewer selected by the candidate, and the dean, select which scholarly materials are to be sent out for external review. Materials may include a curriculum vitae and a personal statement, if desired.
        4. Have the opportunity to review and provide a written response to the list of potential external reviewers.
        5. Have the opportunity to read and respond in writing to the department chair’s report, the GFPTC report, and the dean’s report. In each case, the candidate must submit a response within one week from receiving a copy of the report. The response will become part of the review materials.
      4. The Graduate Faculty Promotion and Tenure Committee shall:
        1. Review the contents of the file, additional materials, and the chair’s evaluation and make an individual assessment in keeping with the standards outlined in this document.
        2. Solicit additional information regarding the candidate’s performance, if desired. The candidate will be informed regarding areas in which information is being formally requested.
        3. Meet as a committee to review each case, with the aim of reaching consensus whenever possible.
        4. Formally record each member’s vote.
        5. Provide a written summary of evaluation for each area of review: teaching, scholarship, and service. The committee shall make a specific recommendation regarding promotion and tenure.
      5. The president shall: Inform the candidate of his or her decision regarding promotion and tenure in writing.
    8. Appeals
      1. Eligibility: The candidates may appeal to the dean of the Graduate School within two weeks of written notification of the president’s decision. An appeal to the dean of the Graduate School of Education and Counseling is granted only on grounds of:
        1. Errors in procedures
        2. Discrimination
        3. Violation of academic freedom
        4. Failure to consider existing evidence adequately

        A decision cannot be overturned on appeal unless the candidate has sustained the burden of proof on one or more of these four grounds. If the dean finds that there are sufficient grounds for appeal, he or she appoints an appeals board and gives the board 30 days in which to make a recommendation.
      2. Composition of the Appeals Board: The Graduate School Appeals Board shall consist of the three previous chairs of the GFPTC who are not currently serving on the GFPTC. In the event that the faculty under review held this position, or that three previous GFPTC chairs are not available, the other members of the appeals committee shall, in consultation with the dean of the Graduate School, select other members for the Appeals Board.
      3. Recommendation of Appeals Board: The Appeals Board makes its recommendation directly to the president, who informs the applicant of their decision within 30 days. In all cases, the president’s judgment shall be final.

Back to section V.A home