Appointment and Review of Non-Tenure Track Faculty (NTT) Faculty | Teaching, Learning and Curriculum Studies Handbook | Kent State University

Appointment and Review of Non-Tenure Track Faculty (NTT) Faculty

  1. Renewal of Appointment

    Appointments for full-time non-tenure track (NTT) faculty are governed by the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement and are made annually. NTT faculty members are appointed in one (1) of the following tracks: Instructional, Clinical, Practitioner and Research. Renewal of appointment is contingent upon programmatic need, satisfactory performance of previously assigned responsibilities, and budgeted resources to support the position.

  2. Full Performance Reviews

    The Full Performance Reviews of NTT faculty members who are in their third or sixth year of consecutive employment are governed by the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement.  Each academic year, guidelines for the Full Performance Reviews for NTT faculty are distributed by the Office of the Provost. The Full Performance Review concludes with the College’s level of review and determination.  The period of performance to be reviewed is the three (3) full academic years of consecutive appointments including that portion of the third appointment which is subject to evaluation and assessment at the time of the review.  Each NTT candidate who must complete a Full Performance Review will submit a dossier as described in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.  The file should contain:

    • An updated curriculum vita
    • A statement, five pages or fewer, which contextualizes teaching responsibilities and other professional activities
    • A teaching evaluation by a tenured faculty member, at least one per year. To emphasize, it is the responsibility of NTT faculty to invite a tenured faculty member.
    • Syllabi for each course taught; the most current syllabus for each course is fine
    • A summary chart of teaching scores which includes every course taught, grouped by semester; sections of the same class are not to be combined. Summary Question 19, “Overall, how would you rate your learning experience in this course?” (or its current equivalent) is to be used, including both numbers of students and the percentage within each category, as well as both the individual mean and college mean* (not included here because this is a fabricated example and so there is no way to know that this might be). For example:

    Name of course

    Excellent

    Very Good

    Good

    Fair

    Poor

    Omitted

    Mean

    Fall 2008 MCED 40005

    Teaching Reading with Phonics

    N = 20

     

     

    8 / 40%

     

     

    6 / 30%

     

     

    4 / 20%

     

     

    2 / 10%

     

     

     

     

    4.0 / _*_

    Spring 2009

    MCED 50007

    Teaching Reading with Literature

    N= 20

     

     

    12 / 60%

     

     

    6 / 30%

     

     

    2 / 10% 

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    4.5 / _*_

    TOTAL  N=40

    20 / 50%

    12 / 30%

    6 / 15%

    2 / 5%

     

     

    4.25 / _*_

    • Evaluation of teaching performance which includes all student comments from each SSI— typed summaries of each question by each course, which are placed after each two-page SSI summary; individual SSIs are not to be included.
    • Documentation of other aspects of best practice in teaching, such as action research projects, sustained collaboration, peer planning, and descriptive reviews of student work may be included.
    • Documentation of other responsibilities, such as program coordination or field coordination which replaces teaching responsibilities, if applicable.

    Additional information about the dossier for a Full Performance Review is included in the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement.

  3. “Simplified” Performance Reviews

    NTT faculty members who are in their ninth year of consecutive employment and any subsequent third year of consecutive employment thereafter (e.g., 12th, 15th, 18th, et. seq.) must successfully complete a “simplified” performance review as described in the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement.  Each academic year, guidelines for the “simplified” performance reviews for NTT faculty are distributed by the Office of the Provost. The “simplified” performance review concludes with the School’s level of review and determination.  The period of performance to be reviewed is the three (3) full academic years of consecutive appointments including that portion of the third appointment which is subject to evaluation and assessment at the time of the review.  NTT faculty who must complete a “simplified” performance review will submit documentation as described in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

  4. NTT Performance Review Criteria

    NTT faculty are reviewed by the School’s RTP Ad Hoc Committee on the specific criteria outlined in their letter of appointment and as described below, including consideration of the track (Instructional, Clinical, Practitioner or Research) to which the NTT faculty member is assigned.   An inherent part of the review process is to provide feedback to the NTT faculty member based on clear and consistent performance criteria.  Renewals of appointment and salaries for NTT faculty should be tied to performance within the parameters established in the applicable CBA.    As with tenured and tenure track faculty, whether for a Full OR “simplified” review, student assessment of teaching, documented through SSI summaries, along with summaries of student’s comments about each course are used to evaluate the performance of NTT faculty.  Peer review of teaching is expect yearly for those undergoing a Full Review; for those under a “simplified” review, a single peer review in the most current teaching year is deemed sufficient.  For NTT faculty in an Instructional track, these are the most critical data in the reappointment process.  However, other documented accomplishments related to workload expectations, including coordination of field experiences, supervision of students in the field, design and/or implementation of new initiatives, student mentoring, among other things, may also be used to assess performance, as necessary.  NTT faculty are encouraged to speak with the Director for guidance in identifying one Faculty member each year to visit a class and evaluate his/her teaching. This written report is submitted to the Director for placement in the faculty member's review file.

    For a successful performance review of NTT faculty members hired for teaching, the Ad Hoc RTP Committee will look for the following criteria:

    • High quality teaching as evidenced by positive peer review(s).
    • High quality teaching as evidenced by overall teaching scores of “Very good” or “Excellent” for Question 19 (or its current equivalent) of the SSI
    • Generally positive student evaluations of instruction, documented by summaries of student comments
    • Evidence of reflective teaching and intentional revision of areas requiring improvement included within contextual statement.
    • For a Full review, teaching materials such as syllabi that include disciplinary knowledge representing contemporary theoretical perspectives and relevant research.
    • Any other available data to assess the quality of instruction.
    • Should NTT faculty members be hired with a clinical or research emphasis, evaluation criteria will be developed to align with their roles and responsibilities.

    Each NTT faculty member is discussed by the committee which votes on a recommendation for renewal of the faculty member’s appointment.  The Director independently assesses the accomplishments of each NTT faculty member and makes available to the Dean her/his recommendation and the committee's recommendation.  The Director informs the NTT faculty member of the Ad Hoc RTP Committee's deliberations and ensures that the faculty member has access to the recommendation that the Director sends to the Dean.  NTT faculty members whose appointments will not be renewed must be notified by the timelines established in the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement whether lack of adequate satisfaction with performance or the absence of anticipated continuing programmatic need or budgeted resources to support the position is the reason.

  5. Promotion

    NTT faculty members who have completed at least six (6) consecutive years of service and at least two (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.  The criteria, guidelines and procedures for NTT promotions are included in the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement.  As required by the Collective Bargaining Agreement, evidence of significant accomplishments in performance and professional development is required.  Accomplishments and/or contributions in the area of University service, when they exist, will contribute to the NTT faculty member’s overall record of accomplishment.  The College’s Non-Tenure Track Promotion Advisory Board (NPAB) shall be composed of NTT faculty representatives.  The NPAB will review the applications for promotion and make a recommendation to the Dean.