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

1. The role of the College in matters of reappointment, the granting of indefinite tenure, and promotion in rank is defined by policies stated in the Tenured/Tenure-Track Collective Bargaining Agreement (Addendum A: University Policy Regarding Faculty Promotion (3342-6-15); Addendum B University Policy Regarding Faculty Tenure (3342-6-14); Addendum C University Policy and Procedures Regarding Faculty Reappointment (3342-6-16)), and in the Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion: A Guide for Administrators, Faculty and Staff issued annually by the Provost’s Office.  .
2. The Dean shall assign a tenured faculty member as a mentor to each probationary tenure-track candidate upon his/her initial appointment.  The mentor shall be responsible for providing guidance and advice to the candidate regarding reappointment, tenure, and promotion policies and processes.  The mentor will also provide advice to the candidate to assist in his/her teaching and professional development, and in creating research and publication opportunities.
3. Faculty are strongly encouraged to seek out institutional resources (e.g., workshops, seminars, conferences, etc.) that are periodically made available by the University to obtain further information regarding faculty professional development, file organization and construction, and research and grant opportunities.
4. RTP criteria are included in the approved College Handbook in place when the faculty member was hired in a tenure-track appointment.  Candidates may, instead, elect to use the RTP criteria in the current College Handbook for their review.  In any case, candidates should clearly specify in their file(s) which College Handbook they have selected, and include the relevant pages in their file(s).
5. Evaluation of tenured/tenure-track faculty shall focus on the areas of teaching, scholarship/research, and service/citizenship.  All tenured/tenure-track faculty of the college are expected to achieve excellence in scholarly activity for tenure and promotion advancement.
6. The decision to grant tenure and promotion plays a crucial role in determining the quality of the College faculty and in the perceived status of the College at both the national and international level.  Tenure and promotion will be awarded only when there is documented, convincing evidence that there is a body of scholarship which has had a positive impact on the candidate’s discipline, high quality teaching, and quality service that suggests continual success in these areas. 

1. The policies and procedures for reappointment are included in the University Policy and Procedures Regarding Faculty Reappointment (see, University Policy Register 3342-6-16).  Each academic year, reappointment guidelines for Kent and Regional Campus faculty are distributed by the Office of the Provost.  Probationary tenure-track faculty members are reviewed by the College’s Ad Hoc RTP Committee.  The probationary faculty member is to ask two or more faculty members in the College to visit his/her class and provide a written review using the form provided by the Associate Dean of Academic Affairs.  Probationary faculty will also create a file using the University software platform that will be available to the Ad Hoc RTP Committee.  Each probationary faculty member is discussed by the committee, which then votes on the faculty member’s reappointment and provides formative comments for the probationary faculty member.  Notification of reappointment is from the Provost. Probationary faculty members who are not to be reappointed must be notified according to the schedule established in the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement.
2. For probationary faculty, reappointment is contingent upon demonstration of adequate progress toward the requirements for tenure.  Moreover, the faculty member must have established and articulated written short (1-2 year) and long-term plans for achieving these goals.  This progress can be evaluated through review of the candidate’s published (or “accepted for publication”) peer-reviewed papers and articles, including an assessment of the quality of the publication and/or the impact of the article using citation indexes appropriate to the field; grant activity (proposals submitted, grants received); presentations; graduate students advised; teaching evaluations and peer reviews; university and professional service; and other professional activity.  Specific concerns expressed by the Ad Hoc RTP Committee and/or the Dean should be addressed by the candidate in subsequent reappointment reviews.  Finally, the overall evaluation of a candidate for reappointment must include consideration of the faculty member's professional behavior as recognized by the University community.  A sound ethical approach to all aspects of teaching, research, publication, and the academic profession is expected of all who seek reappointment in the College.
3. If concerns about a candidate’s performance are raised during the reappointment process, the Ad Hoc RTP Committee shall provide detailed, prescriptive comments to serve as constructive feedback.  If such concerns arise during a review, the probationary faculty member’s faculty mentor will advise and work with the candidate on a suitable, positive plan for realignment with the College’s tenure and promotion expectations; however, the candidate is solely responsible for her/his success in implementing this plan.
4. From time to time, personal and/or family circumstances may arise that require an untenured faculty member to need to request that her/his probationary period be extended.  Upon request, a faculty member may be granted an extension of the probationary period which has been traditionally called “tolling” or “stopping the tenure clock.”  The University Policy and Procedure Governing Modification of the Faculty Probationary Period is included in the University Policy Register (see, University Policy Register 3342-6-13).

1. The policies and procedures for tenure are included in the University Policy Regarding Faculty Tenure (see, A. University Policy Register 3342-6-14) and the policies and procedures for promotion are included in the University Policy Regarding Faculty Promotion (see, A.    University Policy Register 3342-6-15).  Each academic year, tenure and promotion guidelines for Kent and Regional Campus faculty are distributed by the Office of the Provost.
2. Both the tenure decision and the promotion decision can include evaluation of accomplishments prior to arrival at Kent State University, when specified in the offer letter (i.e., years of “service credit” towards tenure and/or promotion).  Accomplishments while at Kent State are the key indicator of present and future success of a tenure-track faculty member.  These evaluations can include review of the candidate’s published, or “accepted for publication” peer-reviewed papers and articles, including an assessment of the quality of the publication and/or the impact of the article using citation indexes appropriate to the field; grant activity (e.g., proposals submitted, grants received); graduate and undergraduate research students advised; presentations; teaching evaluations and peer reviews; university and professional service; and other professional activity.
3. Many factors and criteria, both subjective and objective, are considered in recommending a faculty member for tenure and promotion.  The overall evaluation of a candidate for tenure and promotion shall include consideration of the faculty member's professional behavior as recognized by the University community.  A sound ethical approach to all aspects of teaching, research, publication, and the academic profession are expected of all who seek tenure and promotion in the College.
4. Tenure and promotion are separate personnel actions and require separate decisions.  The criteria for tenure and promotion to the rank of Associate Professor are the same in the College.
   1. Tenure
      1. The granting of tenure is a decision that plays a crucial role in determining the quality of the University’s faculty and the national and international status of the University.
      2.  As such, the awarding of tenure must be based on convincing documented evidence that the faculty member: 
         1. has achieved a significant body of scholarship that is likely to have an impact on her/his discipline and that will ultimately result in the establishment of a nationally and internationally recognized research program, Level II in Table 3-1); 
         2. has demonstrated effectiveness as a teacher and mentor (Level II in Table 3-2);  and 
         3. has met the normal obligations for university service (Level II in Table 3-3).  
            The candidate should also be likely to continue and sustain, over the long term, a program of high-quality teaching and scholarship relevant to the mission of the College and to the mission of the University.
   2. Promotion
      1. As with tenure, promotion to Associate Professor must be based on convincing documented evidence that the faculty member:  
         1. has achieved a significant body of scholarship that is likely to have an impact on her/his discipline and that will ultimately result in the establishment of a nationally and internationally recognized research program (Level II in Table 3-1); 
         2. has demonstrated effectiveness as a teacher and mentor (Level II in Table 3-2); and 
         3.  has met the normal obligations for university service (Level II in Table 3-3). 
            The candidate should also be likely to continue and sustain, over the long term, a program of high-quality teaching and scholarship relevant to the mission of the College and to the mission of the University.
      2. Promotion to the rank of Professor recognizes the establishment of a nationally and internationally recognized research program that has had an impact on the field (Level I in Table 3-1).  A candidate for promotion to Professor must also have demonstrated effectiveness as a teacher and mentor (Level II in Table 3-2) and must have met the normal obligations for university citizenship (Level II in Table 3-3).

1. The role of the College in matters of renewal of appointment, performance reviews, and promotion in rank is defined by policies stated in the Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Collective Bargaining Agreement and in the annual Procedures and Policies Governing Review of Faculty. 
2. The Dean’s office shall assign a full-time non-tenure track faculty member as a mentor to each full-time non-tenure track candidate upon their initial appointment. The mentor shall be responsible for providing guidance and advice to the candidate regarding renewal/reappointment and promotion policies and processes. The mentor will also provide advice to the candidate to assist in his/her teaching and professional development.
3. Faculty are strongly encouraged to seek out institutional resources (e.g., workshops, seminars, conferences, etc.) that are periodically made available by the University to obtain further information regarding faculty professional development; file organization and construction; and, where applicable, research and grant opportunities. 
4. During a candidate's review period, expectations are defined by the version of the College Handbook that was in place at the beginning of that review period. Candidates may alternatively elect to use the currently approved version as their benchmark for evaluation. In any case, candidates should clearly specify in their file which College Handbook version they are adhering to, and perhaps include copies of relevant pages in their documentation.
5. Evaluation of full-time non-tenure track faculty shall focus on the role(s) for which they are employed. Typically, that role is primarily instruction, but a faculty member’s responsibilities may be directed in another area. If a faculty member is assigned time per workload statement allocation for a secondary function (e.g., research, service/citizenship, grant writing, curriculum development, etc.), then that function will be evaluated in proportion to which it was assigned as part of the aggregate assignment. The areas of criteria, the dimensions of those criteria, and the scales of measurement used for faculty evaluation will be used in the evaluation, where applicable, as described in this section of this Handbook. 
6. For FTNTT faculty who are in a primarily instructional role, emphasis will be placed on the demonstrated quality of instruction and demonstrated maintenance of currency in the field. Currency may be demonstrated by participation in documented learning opportunities relevant to the teaching assignment, professional presentations and scholarship, maintenance of, or acquisition of relevant certifications and licenses, etc. 

The following information is supplemental to the Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Collective Bargaining Agreement and the University Policy Register, and is specific to the CAE.

1. Appointments for full-time non-tenure track (FTNTT) 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.
2. Full Performance Reviews
   The Full Performance Reviews of FTNTT 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 FTNTT 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 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 FTNTT candidate who must complete a Full Performance Review will submit a dossier as described in the Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Collective Bargaining Agreement. The file should contain at least an updated curriculum vitae, self-evaluation of performance, syllabi for courses taught during the review period, SSI summaries for courses taught during the review period, and supporting documents as necessary for other accomplishments such as citizenship, if it exists. SSIs are only evaluated relative to the faculty member’s performance regarding assessing information from the SSIs and incorporating changes if necessary.
3. “Simplified” Performance Review 
   FTNTT faculty members who are in their ninth year, 12th year, and 15th year of consecutive employment must successfully complete a “simplified” performance review as described in the Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Collective Bargaining Agreement. Each academic year, guidelines for the “simplified” performance reviews for FTNTT faculty are distributed by the Office of the Provost. The “simplified” performance review concludes with the College’s level of review and determination. The period of performance to be reviewed is the three 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. FTNTT faculty who must complete a “simplified” performance review will submit documentation as described in the Collective Bargaining Agreement in effect at the beginning of the review period unless the faculty member chooses to use the current CBA. SSIs are only evaluated relative to the faculty member’s performance regarding assessing information from the SSIs and incorporating changes if necessary.
4. Administrative Performance Review
   After completion of the Simplified Review required at the 15th year, and each 3-year renewal period thereafter, FTNTT faculty will undergo an Administrative Performance Review in place of the Simplified or Full reviews. The CAE Dean will schedule a meeting with the FTNTT Faculty member who will submit a current Vitae and 1-3 page narrative to the Dean, prior to the meeting, describing his/her professional activities in the last three years. After the meeting and/or consultation with the CAE Dean, the Dean will provide the FTNTT Faculty member with a written summary of the outcome and conclusions of the meeting. The written summary will provide either a notice of the expectation of renewal of appointment and the conditions as of the renewal per the requirements of the CBA, or it will provide a notice of non-renewal and the associated circumstances/conditions per the requirements of the CBA.
5. Performance Review Criteria and Policies
   1. Full-time non-tenure track (FTNTT) faculty are reviewed by a committee comprised of FTNTTs from the CAE. The committee will be selected by the Dean from volunteers. The Dean can assign FTNTTs to the committee if there are no volunteers. Every attempt will be made to have at least five members on the committee but in no case less than three members. Evaluation will be on the specific criteria outlined in their letter of appointment and annual load letter, including consideration of the track (Instructional, Clinical, Practitioner or Research) to which the FTNTT faculty member is assigned. 
   2. An inherent part of the review process is to provide feedback to the FTNTT faculty member based on clear and consistent performance criteria. Renewals of appointment and salaries for FTNTT faculty will be tied to performance within the parameters established in the FTNTT Collective Bargaining Agreement. Rubrics for the assessment of teaching performance, recruitment and/or retention, and research if on a research track, etc. will be developed and shared with the candidate, and used to evaluate performance. Evaluation of Student Assessment of Instruction is only with respect to how the FTNTT addressed the information from the SSIs and any changes made. Faculty are encouraged to demonstrate this in the narrative of their renewal file. FTNTT faculty under simplified reviews, i.e. years 9 and continuing, are encouraged to submit peer reviews to document performance but do so at their own discretion.
   3. The College’s FTNTT Review committee will discuss each FTNTT faculty member who is under review. The FTNTT faculty member’s dossier will serve to document the faculty member’s performance. Performance reviews should ensue with a holistic approach which reflects the highest standard of professional integrity and ethics. 
   4. The College's FTNTT Review committee will forward via FlashFolio its recommendation on renewal of appointment to the College Dean who will make an independent assessment of the candidate’s performance. The review process should be as transparent as possible with the candidate receiving information from the Dean as to the committee deliberations and the recommendation made to the Dean according to the time schedule established in the Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Collective Bargaining Agreement and the University Policy Register. The results of the committee’s review will be provided in FlashFolio in accordance with the FTNTT Collective Bargaining Agreement and the University Policy Register provisions. 
   5. A statement of performance will be issued by the Dean for those faculty members in their first and second year of appointment, followed by a meeting with the Dean which will occur within sufficient time for any noted deficiencies to be corrected prior to the review. The intent is to prepare the faculty member for a successful first full performance review. Nonrenewal of an appointment which results from programmatic or fiscal needs should be distinguished from nonrenewal of appointment which results from performance issues when communicated to the candidate. FTNTT faculty members whose appointments will not be renewed must be notified by the timelines established in the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement whether lack of satisfaction with performance or the absence of anticipated continuing programmatic need or budgeted resources to support the position is the reason. 

1. Professional Development is an essential and critical component of University activity. Professional Development includes those activities that contribute to the individual’s ability to excel in teaching and contribute to the advancement of their discipline. The candidate must provide the college's review committee with ample descriptive evidence of his/her Professional Development activity. 
2. Faculty members are encouraged to hold membership in professional societies, attend and participate in institutes and seminars, organize institutes, seminars, and workshops, insofar as such activities enhance their professional competency and advance their discipline. 
3. Professional Development – Instructional Track
   Professional development for instructional track faculty are activities to keep the member current in his/her field including conferences, seminars, symposiums, work-shops, flight training, consulting, obtaining additional certifications or degrees, professional presentations or any activity that advances the faculty member’s teaching and/or knowledge. 
4. Professional Development – Practitioner Track
   Professional development for faculty in the practitioner track will be evaluated based on maintenance of certificates and licensures necessary for the practice, obtaining additional certificates or licensures, maintaining or obtaining any special professional designations, membership and participation in professional organizations, attendance and/or presentations at professional conferences or organizations, facilitating public outreach, developing or organizing specialized learning opportunities such as camps and lecture series (for collegiate, secondary or elementary) students and developing, revising and/or implementing new operational workplace procedures enhancing performance or safety in the area of practice relative to assigned duties. 
5. Standards for the Evaluation of Professional Development
   1. Indicators on which the assessment of the quality of Professional Development activity is based are provided in Tables 3-7A and 3-7B. Table 3-7B provides a list of the Professional Development activities recognized by the CAE that should be used as criteria for evaluating a candidate's performance in Professional Development for promotion. These activities are largely those that result in increased content knowledge and skills associated with their subject matter; Improved pedagogical knowledge and skills; increased knowledge and use of Instructional technology, media, and materials to improve classroom management, communication, and instruction.
   2. Indicators of the quality of a faculty member’s Professional Development record include the quality and quantity of Professional Development activities. All FTNTT-Instructional Track faculty members in the College are expected to produce records of Professional Development that reflect their disciplinary focus. The attributes of an individual faculty member’s Professional Development activity will vary across disciplines.
   3. To achieve “excellent” in the category of scholarship at the time a faculty member stands for promotion, she/he should have established a record which demonstrates an impact upon his/her discipline. Unless stated in the candidate’s annual workload statement, formal publications, grant writing, and presentations are not required for promotion within FTNTT ranks. Reviewers will evaluate promotion according to criteria listed in the related addendum of the Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Collective Bargaining Agreement. Within this context, each faculty member who will seek promotion is obligated to provide evidence supporting his/her record. In turn, the members of the College's NPAB and the Dean shall evaluate a candidate’s record in light of the College's expectations for a successful promotion decision.

1. Accomplishments and/or contributions in University Citizenship are neither required nor expected of full-time non-tenure track faculty. However, when a candidate has University Citizenship-related accomplishments, those accomplishments may be considered and will contribute to the bargaining unit member’s overall record of accomplishments. Accomplishments in this area can help improve the rating in Teaching and Professional Development at the discretion of the college's review committee. 
2. University Citizenship activities include service to the Academic Program Area, the Campus, the College, and the University as outlined in Tables 3-8A and 3-8B. The merits of University Citizenship should be evaluated as to (1) whether the candidate chaired the committee or was a contributing member and (2) the importance of the service to the mission of the unit served. Less tangible components of citizenship include active participation in program area events such as faculty and graduate student recruitment, seminars, program area meetings and seminars, etc. Contributions will be assessed as it relates to the assigned track of the candidate. 
3. Other components of citizenship are also considered (including public outreach and public and professional service) in promotion decisions and may differ in their importance among faculty members depending on each faculty member’s duties and responsibilities within the College. 
4. University Citizenship – Instructional Track
   While university citizenship is not required of non-tenure track faculty, if the member elects to perform service and include materials for consideration the following types of activities will be considered. Service on unit and/or college committees, university level committees, state and national level committees, advising student organizations, hosting of workshops and/or conferences, community involvement representing Kent State University or the CAE, service to the AAUP; and related activities. 
5. University Citizenship – Practitioner Track
   While university citizenship is not required of non-tenure track faculty, if the member elects to perform service and include materials for consideration the following types of activities will be considered. Service on unit and/or college committees, university level committees, state and national level committees, advising student organizations, hosting of workshops and/or conferences, community involvement representing Kent State University or the CAE, service to the AAUP; and related activities. 

Students, both undergraduate and graduate, are of primary concern to all faculty members, and students' academic needs are of primary importance to the College. Student participation in various College committees may include the College Curriculum Committee (CCC), the Graduate Faculty Advisory Committee (GFAC), and those ad hoc committees where students' viewpoints are useful and appropriate. Student appointments to committees are made by the Dean in consultation with the CAC and the faculty members involved in and affected by a specific committee's work.