RTP Criteria and the Criteria and Processes Relating to Other Faculty Personnel Actions

The policies and procedures for reappointment are included in the University Policy and Procedures Regarding Faculty Reappointment (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, and probationary tenure-track faculty members are reviewed by the School's RTP Committee (See, Section III.B.6. of this Handbook). Documentation appropriate to conduct a thorough review include:

1. Peer evaluations of teaching (See Appendix III for information regarding the Summative Peer Evaluation of Teaching)
2. Current Curriculum Vitae including information regarding Scholarship, Teaching (course assignments, curriculum development), and Citizenship (School, College, University, community and professional);
3. Letter of Reappointment to the Director;
4. Supplemental information: student teaching evaluations, syllabi of courses for which the faculty member was responsible; documentation of student work; etc,

Upon receipt of the above materials, the dossier and performance of each probationary faculty member is discussed by the RTP Committee. The committee then votes on the faculty member's reappointment, and that vote is recorded and sent to the Director. The Director independently assesses the accomplishments of each probationary faculty member and forwards her/his recommendation and the committee's recommendation to the Dean. The Director informs probationary faculty of the committee's recommendation and provides a copy of her/his recommendation to the Dean. Probationary faculty members who are not to be reappointed must be notified according to the schedule established in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. For faculty members whose appointment is in the Regional Campuses, recommendations on reappointment from the Director are forwarded to the Dean and the appropriate Regional Campus Dean.

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 short- and long-term plans for achieving these goals. For faculty members following the traditional tenure clock for Assistant Professors, the review after completion of three (3) full years in the probationary period at Kent State University is particularly critical. Upon completion of the third year of the probationary period, faculty reviewing a candidate for reappointment should consider the record of the candidate's achievements to date. This record should be considered a predictor of future success.

The hallmark of a successful candidate is a record of compelling evidence of impact upon the discourse of her/his discipline. This record can be demonstrated through careful review of the candidate's body of work from the date of hire and qualifications for success as defined by the School (see Criteria for Tenure and Promotion). Specific concerns expressed by the RTP Committee and/or the Director during this stage of 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, research, creative activity, publication, and the academic profession is expected of all who seek reappointment in the School. A candidate who fails to demonstrate likely success in the tenure process will be notified promptly that she/ he will not be reappointed.

In the event that concerns about a candidate's performance are raised during the reappointment process, the RTP Committee and the Director shall provide detailed, prescriptive comments to serve as constructive feedback. If such concerns arise during a review that occurs after completion of three (3) full years in the probationary period, the Director, in consultation with the FAC, will advise and work with the candidate on a suitable, positive plan for realignment with the School's tenure and promotion expectations; however, the candidate is solely responsible for her/his success in implementing this plan. Failure to make progress in meeting School and University requirements for tenure, or failure to satisfactorily address concerns expressed by the RTP Committee or the Director may result in a recommendation to deny reappointment.

From time to time, personal and/or family circumstances may arise that 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)

The policies and procedures for tenure are included in the University policy and procedures regarding faculty tenure University Policy Register (See, 3342-6-14) and the policies and procedures for promotion are included in the University policy and procedures regarding faculty promotion (See, 3342-6-15). Each academic year, tenure and promotion guidelines for Kent and Regional Campus faculty are distributed by the Office of the Provost. Tenure and promotion are separate decisions.

The granting of tenure is a decision that plays a crucial role in determining the quality of university faculty and the national and international status of the University. The awarding of tenure must be based on convincing documented evidence that the faculty member has achieved a significant body of scholarship that has had an impact on her/his discipline, excellence as a teacher, and has provided effective service. The candidate is also expected to continue and sustain, over the long term, a program of high quality teaching, scholarship and service relevant to the mission of the candidate's academic unit and to the mission of the University.

The tenure decision is based on all of the evidence available to determine the candidate's potential to pursue a productive career. This decision is based on the candidate's accomplishments completed during the review period.

Consideration for promotion to Associate Professor is based on recognition for establishing a career likely to achieve national/international prominence as evidenced by the individual faculty members performance as it relates to the School's criteria for Tenure and Promotion. Promotion to Professor recognizes the highest level of university achievement and national/international prominence. Promotion to Professor is evidenced by a record of sustained and highly significant activity as it relates to the School's criteria for Tenure and Promotion.

Many factors and criteria, both subjective and objective, are considered in recommending a faculty member for tenure and advancement in academic rank. The overall evaluation of a candidate for tenure and promotion shall 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, creative endeavor and research, publication, and the academic profession are expected of all who seek tenure and promotion in the School.

The RTP Committee shall consider the following areas of faculty performance when making recommendations on tenure and promotion. The tables and text below are designed to facilitate assessment of performance of those candidates who are being evaluated for tenure and promotion. During the probationary period, these tools should be used for developmental assistance and projection of future success in achieving tenure and promotion.

Tables 1 (A and B), 2, and 3 provide guidelines for the assessment of a faculty member's performance and a rating scale for use in the evaluation of candidates. For promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor the faculty member must meet the criteria for an "excellent" rating in either scholarship or teaching with at least a "very good" rating in the other category. University citizenship must at least meet the minimum School criteria as outlined in Table 3. These same categories and assessment tools apply for tenure decisions.

A candidate for promotion to Professor must meet the criteria for an "excellent" rating in scholarship and teaching. University citizenship must exceed the minimum School criteria. A candidate for promotion to Professor need not have equal activity in scholarship, teaching and service as he/she becomes more specialized. Documentation of a faculty member's achievements will be demonstrated in a dossier presented to the School prior to a faculty member's application for tenure or promotion.

For Assistant Professors, this dossier will typically be presented during the faculty member's third full year in this rank. For promotion to Associate Professor and Professor, the seminar should be the year prior to an anticipated promotion application.

To assist in the process of assessing the originality, quality, impact and value of faculty work, the candidate shall submit the names, contact information, and credentials of at least six (6) experts in her/his field who are considered capable of judging the candidate's dossier from like institutions in a manner that is detached and dispassionate. In some cases, one external reviewer from industry may be included if appropriate. Faculty submitting their dossier for review should have limited personal relations with the members of their external review panel.

A faculty member's specific area of specialization may be a factor in the number and scope of accomplishments and time required for research and the resulting dissemination and review.

Creative Activity and Scholarship is an essential and critical component of University activity. It is expected that the work of the faculty is to make a significant and sustained contribution to the School and it's mission. Regardless of form, creative activity and/or scholarship should have a direct correlation with each faculty member's area of expertise, interest, and teaching assignments. Faculty members are expected to document their work and it's resulting impact. The School of Visual Communication Design defines a broad range of creative activity and/or scholarship appropriate for faculty:

Criteria for the evaluation of the teaching are listed in Table 2. Course revision is defined as making a substantial modification to a course such as developing distance learning options, formally proposing to change course content/format, etc. Course development is defined as creating new course offerings, content and delivery methods. Curriculum development is defined as making a substantial modification to a degree program, and area of concentration or minor.

Other information such as written comments from students, colleagues within and beyond the School, College or University administrators shall be considered when available. Peer reviews 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. Copies of representative syllabi, examinations, summative peer review of teaching and other relevant teaching material should also be available for review.

Graduate Faculty members are expected to mentor graduate students. Documentation related to graduate student and undergraduate student should be included in materials provided by a candidate for reappointment, tenure and promotion. Evaluation of teaching will account for differences in missions and expectations across campuses.

Table 2. Evaluation Components for Assessment of Teaching for promotion and tenure

A faculty member's contributions as a University citizen include service to the School, the Campus, the 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 (2) the nature and extent of the committee accomplishments, and (3) the importance of the service to the mission of the unit served. Less tangible components of citizenship include active participation in school events such as faculty and graduate student recruitment, seminars, school meetings and seminars, etc.

Being an active and useful citizen of the School, Campus, 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 are higher than for promotion to Associate Professor.

Table 3. Assessment of University Citizenship for promotion and tenure.

Other components of service are also considered (including 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 School.