Appendix 5.B | Hugh A. Glauser School of Music Handbook | Kent State University

Appendix 5.B

APPENDIX 5.B

KENT STATE UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF MUSIC

 

MUSIC ADDITIONS TO PROMOTION, TENURE AND REAPPOINTMENT POLICIES

 

Reporting Procedure

All relevant data which are to be considered shall be made available to the appropriate committees. Such data might include information on scholarly research in progress, research that was carried out in preparation for a given aspect of creative activity (as well as practical solutions to aesthetic problems, and evidence of critical responses to scholarly and/or creative activity).

 

Tenure

The School of Music follows the tenure procedures as outlined in the University Policy Register and the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). To be recommended for tenure, candidates must give evidence in the form of a complete tenure file indicating they have successfully met all tenure requirements as stated in the CBA and the music addition in this handbook. Tenure and promotion files are to be submitted to the Director at the same time and by the deadlines established by the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost.

 

Reappointment

Reappointment of tenure-track faculty is contingent upon documented, continued and consistent evidence of professional growth and proficiency in the recognized categories of scholarship. In the School of Music, high quality of teaching is especially important. Annual evaluations in these areas are similar to those for Promotion and Tenure. The ad hoc committee reviews the file of the candidate and makes its recommendation to the Director; the Director, in the form of a letter, prepares an evaluation and assessment of the candidate and makes an independent recommendation that is forwarded to the Dean of the college with a copy to the candidate.

 

Peer Evaluation of Instruction -- Reappointment and Tenure

The following systematic peer evaluation procedure in no way precludes visitations by other members of the School of Music faculty. All members of the School of Music RTP (reappointment, tenure and promotion) committee may visit instruction sessions for each candidate under review. Faculty members who are observing instruction sessions are requested to follow guideline 6, and to be sure that no more than one observer is present at any single private lesson.

 

1. The FAC should meet early in the fall semester, preferably during the first two weeks of classes, to elect a separate faculty committee for the evaluation of instruction of each faculty member under review for reappointment or tenure the following fall. The committee should consist of three tenured or tenure-track faculty in the School of Music. An attempt should be made to vary the makeup of the committee over repeated years of review, although appropriate expertise should always be a factor in the selection.

2. Each member of the evaluating committee should visit at least two complete instruction sessions (classes, private lesson, or ensemble rehearsal) presented by the faculty member under review. At the time of the election of the evaluating committee, the FAC should determine whether or not the visitations should include classes, private lessons, ensembles, or a combination of all assigned teaching duties.

3. Within two days following the election of the committee, the Director of the School of Music should notify the candidate that the election has been held and indicate which faculty members have been elected. The composition of the committee may be reviewed by the FAC upon request of the candidate. A request for review of the committee should be submitted to the Director within one week of the initial notification. After the committee is established by the FAC, the Director should ask each member to serve, indicating the makeup of the entire committee to each member. The Director should send out reminders to peer evaluators approximately five weeks into the semester and at later times on an as-needed basis.

4. A maximum of two evaluating committee members should visit the same class session or ensemble rehearsal, and a maximum of one committee member should visit the same private lesson.

5. Evaluating committees should attempt to observe the widest possible range of teaching activities. For example, if the faculty member teaches three different classroom courses, the committee should attempt to cover all three, and if possible, private lessons involving different students should be observed.

6. All observations should be made during the fall and spring semesters prior to the deadline for submission of the file. Each member of the evaluating committee should contact the faculty member under review to let him/her know that the visitations will be made during the year. Suggestions for specific times should be requested from the faculty member under review, but the members of the committee should be free to visit any class, private lesson, or ensemble rehearsal except for times when examinations have been scheduled. For each visitation, the member of the evaluating committee should notify the faculty member under review at least two working days in advance. If a committee member will not be able to attend an instructional session that was scheduled for a visitation, that member should notify the candidate of the cancellation as early as possible. Faculty should be sure that no more than one observer is present at any single private lesson. In-class observations are the expected norm; videotaped observations must be approved by the Director in advance of the class session. Observations of online classes may be appropriate in certain cases.

7. Within two weeks of each observation, the member of the evaluating committee should prepare a written report. This report should consist of comments in a format the peer reviewer finds appropriate. The committee member should submit one copy of the report to the Director and one copy to the candidate. The Director will keep the reports on file. The Director should add the reports to the candidate’s file before the file is made available to the RTP Committee. The faculty member under review is encouraged to read the reports. He/she should have the opportunity to include a response to the written reports as part of the file.

8. These reports should be used directly for peer evaluation of instruction in reappointment, tenure and promotion considerations. They should not be used in considerations for merit raises or any other evaluative processes, without the explicit written permission of the faculty member.

 

The above procedure applies to both Kent campus faculty and regional campus faculty. Teaching evaluations of regional campus faculty should also be done according to the procedures outlined in the handbook for each campus.