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

  1. Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion Consideration for Tenure-Track Faculty

    1. Ad-Hoc Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion Committee

      Consideration for reappointment, tenure and promotion is based on the process of peer review and evaluation.  This review is a requirement of the University.  The review is initiated by the Dean, with formation of the ad hoc Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion (RTP) Committee.  As directed by University Policies, the ad hoc RTP Committee is the same for reappointment, tenure and promotion and is composed of 1) all tenured members of the College Advisory Committee; 2) all tenured Faculty at the rank of Professor who are not members of the CAC; and 3) if a program or academic discipline within the College is not represented on the ad hoc RTP Committee, then a Professor from the same discipline at a similar institution shall be appointed by the Dean to serve on the Committee as a voting member.

    2. Reappointment

      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 Faculty members are reviewed annually by the College’s ad hoc RTP Committee.

      The Dean, in consultation with the CAC, assigns two (2) Faculty members to visit the classes of each probationary Faculty member, interview students in the classes, and generally evaluates the Faculty member’s teaching performance.   A written report of the evaluation is submitted to the Dean for placement in the Faculty member’s reappointment file.  Probationary Faculty members will also create an updated file that is presented to the Dean who will make these materials 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.

      The Dean informs probationary Faculty members of the ad hoc RTP Committee's recommendation and provides a copy of her/his recommendation.  Probationary Faculty members who are not to be reappointed must be notified according to the schedule established in the CBA.  For Faculty members whose appointment is in the Regional Campuses, recommendations on reappointment are made by the Dean, and the appropriate Regional Campus Dean.

      For probationary Faculty, reappointment is contingent upon demonstration of adequate progress toward the requirements for tenure.  While each year of the Probationary period is important, by the third year review, the probationary faculty member must demonstrate progress towards tenure which suggests likely success.  If not, that individual should not be reappointed.  Moreover, the Faculty member must have established and articulated short- and long-term plans for achieving these goals.

      A successful candidate presents documented evidence of progress appropriate to the time spent in a tenure–track appointment.  This progress shall be demonstrated through peer review of the candidate’s scholarship.

      Specific concerns expressed by the ad hoc RTP Committee and/or the Dean during the probationary period 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 personal integrity and professional behavior as recognized by the University community.  A sound ethical approach to all aspects of teaching, scholarly research and creative activity, and service is expected of all who seek reappointment in the College.

      Concerns about a candidate’s performance as articulated during the reappointment process shall be addressed, the ad hoc RTP Committee and the Dean.  If concerns arise during a reappointment review, the Dean, in consultation with the CAC, will advise and direct the candidate on a 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.

      Personal circumstances may require an untenured Faculty member 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 procedures governing modification of the faculty probationary period is included in the University Policy Register (See, University Policy Register 3342-6-13).

    3. Tenure and Promotion

      The procedures relating to tenure and promotion are described in the University Policy Register, sections 3342-6-14 and 3342-6-15.  Faculty members must be familiar with these documents.  Each year, usually in August, the Office of the Provost issues specific guidelines for the preparation and review of tenure and promotion files.

      For the award of tenure and promotion to Associate Professor and Professor, the College requires external evaluation of the candidate’s scholarship and/or creative activity by nationally recognized scholars (e.g., tenured professors of equal or higher rank at other accredited universities) who may speak to the candidate’s record and the quality of their scholarship.  All such reviews will require at least three (3) and preferably five (5) letters from external evaluators.  When the candidate is being reviewed for tenure and promotion simultaneously, the same letters may serve for both reviews.  External reviewers cannot be current or former colleagues or collaborators of the candidate, but should be in a position to give an unbiased and independent review of the candidate’s work.  The candidate, in consultation with the Dean, will prepare complete submittal packages for each reviewer.

    4. Tenure

      The awarding of tenure is the most important decision made by the Faculty.   This decision determines the future direction and vitality of the University, College, and its degree programs.  The ad hoc RTP Committee has the critical responsibility of evaluating the quality and consistency of the scholarship, teaching, and service of each probationary Faculty member.  In addition, the ad hoc RTP Committee must evaluate the positive contribution the candidate makes to the College and its scholarly mission.  The committee advises the Dean of each candidate’s merits for tenure.

      1. Qualifications

        All candidates must possess an appropriate terminal degree and present a body of scholarly work of quality and consistency

      2. Procedure

        It is the tenure candidate’s responsibility to develop a tenure dossier for review.

        Scholarly work leading to tenure and promotion can typically be divided into two categories:  (1) research; and (2) creative activity.  Neither category is prioritized over the other --both research and creative activity constitute scholarship.

        Not all tenure dossiers will include all of the following items, but when they are included the following background information must be included:

        1. Books must have an ISBN number and be listed with the name of the press.  If the press is a nationally recognized press with a consistent reputation for high scholarly standards, then a judgment of its value can be made upon publication.  The book’s further value is established upon independent review of the book in scholarly journals and awards granted by scholarly societies.  Where a book is a multi-author work, the relative contribution of each co-author must be listed as a percentage.  The percentages must be confirmed in writing by the co-authors or the general editor.  When not published by a recognized press the candidate must include a detailed statement of the review process of the press, and the resumes of the board members.  Self-published books are not peer reviewed, and cannot be considered for tenure until independently reviewed following publication.  In most cases it will take two (2) to three (3) years for such reviews to be published.  Note that self-publishing carries the risk that no independent scholarly review of the book will occur in time for consideration for tenure and/or promotion.
        2. Professional design work (e.g., interior, architectural, urban design) must be listed with the exact contribution of the candidate (e.g., lead designer, designer of subsystems) and the contribution of the candidate confirmed in writing by the designer of record.  Note that it is the candidate’s responsibility to obtain written confirmation.  Designs are peer reviewed when they are independently reviewed in newspapers and journals, or when they receive awards of excellence from professional organizations, or other organizations dealing with the built environment.  Unbuilt designs may be considered when they have been subjected to peer review.
        3. Articles published in scholarly journals carry significant weight when the journal has a consistent reputation for high scholarly standards.  Articles published in less regarded journals or conference proceedings should be accompanied by the same background information as a book not published by a nationally recognized press. Citations of scholarly articles can also establish their impact, quality and relevance.
        4. Peer-reviewed and invited exhibitions and gallery shows must be fully documented. This documentation includes but is not limited to description of the venue, organizers, and a clear narrative describing the significance of the work. Exhibition catalogs or independent reviews of the exhibition aid in establishing the quality of the work.  Awards garnered as a result of exhibition give special significance to the work.
        5. Presentations at conferences are evaluated on an individual basis based on the scholarly rigor of the conference and the peer review process for presenters.  Candidates must include the name and place of the conference, the published acceptance rate of papers at the conference if available, the list of reviewers, and the organization sponsoring the conference.  Candidates should understand that conferences which do not provide the above information may not be fully credited by the ad hoc RTP Committee.  It is the candidate’s responsibility to present work in venues which fully work within the peer review process.  Presentations are especially important in the tenure process when they lead to published work. 
        6. Other creative activities may be considered for tenure and promotion. Submissions must be accompanied with appropriate certification of authorship and peer review.  Published reviews and awards aid in determining quality and potential impact.

        The College puts high value on the quality of research and creative activities of candidates for tenure.

    5. Teaching

      The quality of teaching is very important in evaluating a Faculty member for tenure.  No candidate should expect to be recommended for tenure without evidence of continued excellence in teaching.  Consistently below average teaching (SSI averages) may be a basis for denying tenure.

      The quality of course content, organization of information, evaluation of the candidate’s teaching by RTP, interest level of the students, student successes, and student evaluations help measure the quality of a Faculty member’s teaching.  A candidate shall not be recommended for tenure if he/she has not complied with the University’s Faculty Code of Professional Ethics as appears in the University Policy Register.

    6. University and Professional Citizenship

      University and professional citizenship are also mandatory for achieving tenure.  Faculty members are expected to serve on Program, College and University committees as part of their normal and ordinary responsibilities.  The College also values the Faculty members’ distinguished service to their professional and/or scholarly organizations.

    7. Standards for the Evaluation of Scholarship

      All Faculty of the College are expected to seek excellence in scholarly activity and submit such activity for peer review.  Indicators on which the assessment of the quality of scholarly activity is based are provided in Table 1.

      Indicators of the quality of a Faculty member’s research and creative activity include the quality and quantity of presentations, exhibitions, installations and published work as well as the Faculty member’s success in obtaining extramural funds.  All Faculty members in the College are expected to produce and sustain a record of scholarly activity.

      To achieve “excellent” in the category of scholarship at the time a Faculty member stands for tenure and promotion, the candidate should meet the expectations as outlined in Table 1.

      Within this context, during each annual reappointment review, each Faculty member who seeks tenure or promotion is obligated to provide evidence supporting his/her scholarly record.  This obligation will be met by providing specific information about the significance and impact of presentations, exhibitions and installations, scholarly publications, and other scholarly activities.  In addition, the candidate shall provide evidence of the peer review of the scholarly activities including, but not limited to, exhibition reviews, design reviews, awards, or peer review board membership and policies by the scholarly press, journal, or conference.  Creative work that is published or included in books, design journals, magazines and newspapers, shall be considered significant in the tenure review process.

      1. Table 1. Evaluation Components for Assessment of Scholarship for Tenure and Promotion



        Accomplishments Corresponding to the Assessment Score


        Nationally/Internationally recognized research program, and/or body of creative activity

        Demonstrated record of publications,1 grants2, and/or exhibitions and installations, invited presentations, research-related service to federal/state organizations, awards, recognition from  professional or scholarly societies3

        Very   Good

        Emerging nationally

        recognized research program, and/or body of creative activity

        Demonstrated record of publications, “seed” grants, exhibitions, installations and presentations at scholarly meetings and conferences



        Active research program and/or body of creative activity

        Some peer-reviewed publications or “seed” grants, some exhibitions, installations or presentations at  scholarly meetings and conferences


        Limited research program and/or body of creative activity

        Occasional publications, exhibitions, installations or scholarly presentations


        No research program and/or body of creative activity

        No publications, exhibitions, installations, presentations, or grants

        Note: definitions in footnotes below refer to the meaning of “publications,” “grants,” and “recognition” throughout Table 1.
        1Publications include: papers in peer-reviewed journals of recognized quality, books, and book chapters.  Evaluation of publication record will include an assessment of quality and impact on the field as well as quantity.  Papers of exceptional length, impact and quality are given particular consideration.  
        2“Grants” refers to extramural funding where the role of the Faculty member in securing the funding is clearly demonstrated and which are of sufficient magnitude to support research at a level and duration appropriate for the discipline, including, as appropriate, funds for supplies, materials and personnel (graduate students, and if needed, research technicians).  “Seed Grants” are extramural grants that are intended to initiate research projects and not of sufficient magnitude to fully support research at a level and duration appropriate for the discipline or are intramural grants.  "Seed Grants" should be designed to lead to successful applications for “Grants.” Grantsmanship should be commensurate with the field of research with the recognition that the dollar amount of awards varies among fields.  
        3Recognitions from scientific, artistic and scholarly societies include, for example, election to office, editorial board membership, editorship, etc.  Service to federal/state institutions includes service on federal proposal panels, site visits, and other research related activities.

    8. Standards for the Evaluation of Teaching

      A Faculty member’s success as a teacher will be evaluated as outlined in Table 2.  Quality of classroom teaching is established through written comments from students, colleagues within and beyond the Program, College or University.  Peer reviews of teaching and summaries of Student Surveys of Instruction (including all student comments) must be submitted as part of a candidate’s file for reappointment, tenure and promotion.

      Candidates shall submit syllabi of new and revised courses. Copies of representative syllabi, examinations, and other relevant teaching material should also be available for review.  Documentation related to undergraduate student and graduate student outcomes should be included in materials provided by a candidate for reappointment, tenure and promotion.

      1. Table 2. Evaluation Components for Assessment of Teaching for Tenure and Promotion

        Teaching Assessment



                     Accomplishments Corresponding

                            to the Assessment Score


        Innovative educator and an educational leader


        Active participation in curricular development and revisions, develop new and revise existing courses, supervises undergraduate and graduate research projects, supervises students’ design competitions and publishing, excellent student and peer evaluations, instructional creativity, teaching awards


        Very  Good

        Innovative educator

        Develop new and revise existing courses,  above average student evaluations and  peer evaluations, work with graduate and/or undergraduate students in research and/or creative activity


        Meets obligations well

        Average student and peer evaluations, demonstrated strength in teaching, communicates well


        Substandard teacher

        No curricular involvement and no development of new or revised course content, below average student and peer evaluations


        substandard, ineffective teacher

        No curricular involvement and no development of new or revised course content, below average student and peer evaluations, pattern of complaints


    9. Standards for the Evaluation of University Citizenship

      A Faculty member's contributions as a University citizen include service to the Program, College, and the University as outlined in Table 3.  The merits of University service should be evaluated as to (1) whether or not the candidate chaired the committee listed; and (2) the importance of the service to the mission of the unit served.  Less tangible components of citizenship include active participation in department events such as faculty and graduate student recruitment, seminars, department meetings and seminars, etc.

      Being an active and useful citizen of the Program, College and University is expected and valued; however, service of any magnitude cannot be considered more important than a candidate's research and other scholarly activity and instructional responsibilities.  Expectations in service for promotion to Professor should meet high citizenship expectation for promotion to Associate Professor.

      Other components of service are also considered including, but not limited to, public outreach and public and professional service in reappointment, tenure and promotion decisions and may differ in their importance among Faculty members depending on each Faculty member’s duties and responsibilities within the College.

      1. Table 3. Assessment of University Citizenship for Promotion and Tenure

        Citizenship Assessment

        Examples of Accomplishments Corresponding to the Assessment Score

        Exceeds obligations

        Significant role in Program, College and/ or University as evidenced by leadership and productive service on committees, active participation in significant events, effectively chairing committees, specific administrative assignments, meaningful public outreach

        Meets obligations

        Meets the Program, College, and University obligations, participation in commencements and events (e.g., lectures, reviews), service on committee(s).

        Does not meet obligations

        Does not meet Program or College obligations in a timely manner or does not actively participate in significant

        College/University events

  2. Appointment and Reviews of NTT Faculty

    1. Appointment

      Full-time non-tenure track (NTT) faculty members are appointed in one 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.  Appointments for (NTT) faculty members are governed by the NTT Collective Bargaining Agreement and are made annually.

    2. Full Performance Review

      The Full Performance Reviews of NTT faculty members who are in their third or sixth year of consecutive employment are governed by the applicable CBA.  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 CBA.  The file should contain at least an updated curriculum vita, self evaluation of performance, and supporting documents.  Additional information about the dossier for a Full Performance Review is included in the applicable CBA.

    3. Simplified Performance Review

      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 CBA.  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 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. NTT faculty who must complete a “simplified” performance review will submit documentation as described in the CBA.

    4. Performance Review Criteria

      NTT faculty are reviewed by the College’s RTP Committee on the specific criteria outlined in their letter of appointment and elsewhere, 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.  Rubrics for the assessment of teaching performance, recruitment and/or retention, research, etc. will be developed and shared with the candidate, and used to evaluate performance.  Student assessment of teaching and mentoring may also be used to assess performance, as necessary.  NTT faculty members are also to be evaluated by at least two (2) Faculty members in the College appointed by the Dean.  Written reports are submitted to the Dean for inclusion in the candidate’s dossier.

      The College’s RTP Committee will discuss each full-time NTT faculty member who is being reviewed.  The NTT 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 personal and professional integrity and ethics. Any evaluation of an NTT faculty member shall include consideration of the faculty member’s personal integrity and professional behavior as recognized by the University community.  A sound ethical approach is expected of all NTT faculty members who seek renewal of appointment in the College.

      The College’s RTP Committee will forward 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.  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.  NTT faculty members whose appointments will not be renewed must be notified by the timelines established in the applicable CBA whether lack of satisfaction with performance or the absence of anticipated continuing programmatic need or budgeted resources to support the position is the reason.

    5. Promotion

      Beginning in academic year 2011-12, 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.  Information about NTT promotions is included in the applicable CBA.  As required by the CBA, evidence of significant accomplishments in performance and professional development is required.  Accomplishments and/or contributions in the area of university citizenship, 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.