RIT Policy on Tenure 3

Table of Contents 1 2 RIT Policy on Tenure...... 3 3 1. Preamble...... 3 4 2. Conditions of Tenure Appointments...... 3 5 a. Appointment...... 3 6 b. Tenure Location...... 4 7 c. Probationary Period...... 4 8 d. Criteria for Granting Tenure...... 6 9 NTID Tenure Expectations ...... 8 10 3. Tenure Process...... 10 11 a. Documentation...... 10 12 NTID Tenure Documentation...... 12 13 b. Annual and Comprehensive Mid-tenure Reviews...... 13 14 1. Annual Review...... 13 15 2. Comprehensive Mid-tenure Review...... 13 16 NTID Comprehensive Mid-tenure Review...... 15 17 c. Tenure Review and Recommendations...... 16 18 4. Expedited Tenure Review...... 19 19 NTID Tenure Review...... 21 20 Appendix A Calendar of Action...... 23 21 Appendix B Comprehensive Mid-tenure Review...... 20 22 B.1 Department Head Assessment Form...... 25 23 B.2 Department Peer Assessment Form...... 27 24 B.3 College Tenure Committee Assessment Form...... 29 25 B.4 President/Dean Confidential Assessment Form...... 31 26 Appendix C Tenure Review...... 31 27 C.1 Department Head Recommendation Form...... 31 28 C.2 Department Peer Recommendation Form...... 33 29 C.3 College Tenure Committee Recommendation...... 35 30 C.4 President/Dean Confidential Recommendation Form...... 37 31 C.5 Sample Letter to External Reviewers...... 38 32 C.6 Guidelines for External Reviewers...... 39 33 Appendix D Access to Documentation...... 40 34 D.1 NTID Table: Comprehensive Mid-tenure Review ...... 40 35 D.2 NTID Table: Tenure Review...... 41 36 Appendix E Tenure Committee Membership...... 42 37 Appendix F Interpreting Sign Language Proficiency Interview Rating Scale (SLPI) ...... 44 38 Appendix G RIT Institute Policy on Scholarship...... 45 39 Appendix H Definition of Creative Work...... 46 40 Appendix J RIT Institute Policy on Service...... 47 41 Appendix K Extracts from Provost’s 2012 Guidance...... 48 42

1 43 NTID Policy on Tenure and Simultaneous Promotion to Associate Professor 44 45 This document contains both the text of E5.0 taken from the RIT Policies and Procedures Manual and 46 the NTID Policy on Tenure and Simultaneous Promotion to Associate Professor which applies E5.0 to the 47 circumstances of the college. The text of E.5.0 appears in italic typeface. The policies and procedures 48 specific to NTID appear in bold typeface. 49 50 51 RIT POLICY ON TENURE 52 53 1. Preamble 54 55 Tenure is a fundamental pillar that supports and protects RIT faculty members' freedom of inquiry and 56 expression in teaching and scholarship, conferring the right of self-direction for faculty members without 57 concern for the stability of their position. 58 59 The RIT tenure policy is designed to encourage and reward excellence in teaching, scholarship, and service 60 and to promote the atmosphere of critical inquiry and creative expression that is vital to the academic and 61 cultural life of the university. Tenure is earned by demonstrated achievements and ongoing pursuit of 62 advancements in teaching, scholarship, and service, guided by concern for students' and colleagues' personal 63 worth and advancement. The most important factor in the tenure decision process is the evaluation of the 64 candidate by his/her colleagues, made in light of the candidate's individual Statement of Expectations. 65 Colleagues' judgment of such achievements is primary, informed by an individual's Statement of Expectations. 66 The pursuit of excellence continues beyond the tenure decision. Tenured faculty, department heads, and other 67 administrators share responsibility to ensure that all faculty continue to grow and develop professionally. 68 Tenure decisions shall be based upon documentation that meet the criteria outlined in the following policy. 69 70 2. Conditions of Tenure Appointments 71 72 a. Appointment 73 74 1. Contract 75 76 Appointment to the RIT faculty shall only be consummated through a written contract approved by 77 the provost. The contract shall clearly state whether the candidate is or is not to be offered a tenure- 78 track appointment, and in the case of tenure-track appointments, in which college tenure would 79 reside. In the case of a joint appointment the contract shall also clearly state in which college the 80 secondary appointment would reside. 81 82 2. Statement of Expectations 83 84 If an appointment is to a tenure-track position, an initial written Statement of Expectations 85 describing specific criteria for being awarded tenure shall be provided to the faculty member with 86 the written contract provided at the time of hire. This Statement of Expectations shall inform the 87 candidate of published tenure criteria, as well as any additional expectations specific to the 88 candidate. The Statement of Expectations is based on an agreement made between the candidate 89 and the dean of the college, with the recommendation from the head of the department into which 90 the candidate is being hired, and with the approval of the provost and the president of the university. 91 The signed Statement of Expectations document ensures that each party understands tenure 92 expectations and clearly states how policy allows these expectations for tenure to evolve before a 93 candidate's mid-tenure review. 94 95 The Statement of Expectations may be updated to modify the candidate-specific expectations with 96 the mutual consent of the candidate, the department head, and the dean. Before the Comprehensive 97 Mid-tenure Review, the candidate, department head, or dean may initiate a modification. After the

2 98 Comprehensive Mid-tenure Review, only the candidate may initiate a modification. In either case, a 99 signed copy of the updated Statement of Expectations with the modified candidate-specific 100 expectations, agreed to by all parties, shall be provided to the candidate. The initial Statement of 101 Expectations, and any updates to that Statement, provides a frame of reference for those evaluating 102 each faculty member throughout the tenure review process. 103 104 All Statements of Expectations shall be governed by university criteria and individual college 105 expectations for meeting the criteria. 106 107 b. Tenure Location 108 109 1. A faculty member shall be granted tenure in one of the colleges of the university or in the 110 Golisano Institute for Sustainability. Throughout this policy, the word 'college' will include the 111 Golisano Institute for Sustainability. 112 1 113 2. In the case of a tenured faculty member changing from a single to a joint appointment or of a 114 tenured faculty member who moves from one college to another, the location(s) and status of 115 the faculty member's tenure shall be established by following the provisions of E.21 Policy on 116 Assignment and Transfer of Tenure-Track Faculty. 117 118 c. Probationary Period 119 120 1. Length of the Probationary Period 121 122 The probationary period before granting of tenure is normally six contract years for a faculty 123 member who has had no teaching experience before appointment to the university faculty. For 124 candidates with no reduction of the probationary period, the tenure consideration and 125 evaluation shall be made in the sixth year. If tenure is granted, it is effective at the start of the 126 following contract year. 127 128 2. Reducing Probationary Period 129 130 a. Equivalency Credit 131 1.1.1 132 i. For each year of equivalent teaching experience, the probationary period may be 133 reduced by one year. Equivalent teaching experience normally shall be full-time 134 teaching at the rank of Instructor or above in a regionally accredited institution of 135 higher learning, or full-time teaching in a non-tenure-track position at RIT. 136 137 ii. A reduction in the probationary period may also be given for scholarship in the 138 subject-matter field in which the candidate is expected to teach and conduct 139 scholarship. 140 141 iii. The equivalency of previous teaching and/or scholarship shall be evaluated by the 142 department head and dean, and approved by the provost. 143 144 a.iv. The probationary period may be reduced by a maximum of two years, except by 145 action of the provost in special circumstances, or in accordance with the Expedited 146 Tenure Process section of this Policy. 147 148 b. Reduction in Equivalency Credit 149 1.1.2 150 Faculty members with equivalency credit may reduce their initial equivalency credit by one

3 151 year by written notice to the dean. Such notice must be made before the first day of the spring 152 term before their scheduled tenure review. Further reductions in equivalency credit may only be 153 granted with the written agreement of the dean. The dean shall notify Human Resources and the 154 Office of the Provost of any reduction in equivalency credit. 155 3. Hiring with Tenure 156 157 A faculty member may only be hired with tenure under the provisions of Section 4 of this policy, 158 "Expedited Tenure Process. 159 160 4. Extension of Probationary Period 161 162 a. A pre-tenured faculty member who becomes a parent by birth or adoption before the 163 tenure documentation is due is automatically granted a one-year extension to the tenure 164 probationary period upon providing written notice of each birth or adoption to the 165 department head, dean, and provost within six months of the birth or adoption and before 166 the tenure documentation is due. The automatic extensions may be waived if the faculty 167 member so desires and so indicates in writing to the dean before the first day of the spring 168 term preceding the requested tenure consideration date. 169 1.2 170 b. An extension of the tenure probationary period shall be provided to tenure-track 171 faculty who apply for and are granted an approved leave of absence as defined 172 in E.17.0, E.33.0, or E34.0. The extension of the probationary period shall be for a 173 minimum of one year. 174 175 c. Pre-tenured faculty who wish to focus on research activities and who secure 176 external funding to support those activities (including full salary and benefits) may request 177 temporary assignment to a non-tenure track research faculty position for one year 178 (See E6.0). Tenure-track faculty who are accepted to research faculty positions will be 179 given a leave of absence from their tenure-eligible faculty positions for a maximum of one 180 year. They may also request a one-year tenure-clock extension during that period. Any 181 scholarship completed in this period shall be considered towards tenure and promotion 182 should the faculty member return to their tenure-track position. 183 1.1 184 d. In extraordinary cases, tenure-track faculty may request an extension of the 185 probationary period for extenuating circumstances prior to September 1 of the year of the 186 faculty member’s tenure review. A confidential written request, detailing the reasons for 187 the extension, shall be submitted to the department head. The department head forwards 188 the request, along with his/her written recommendation to the dean. The dean forwards the 189 request, the department head's recommendation, and his/her written recommendation to 190 the provost. The provost shall review the request and recommendations and make a 191 determination. The faculty member, department head, and dean will be notified in writing 192 of the extension decision and in the case of a positive decision, the projected tenure review 193 date. 194 195 e. A previously granted extension shall be reversed upon the candidate's request. Such a 196 request must be made in writing to his/her dean before the first day of the spring term 197 preceding the requested tenure consideration date. Once such a reversal is requested in 198 writing, the extension is automatically reversed. 199 1.1 200 f. Documentation associated with extensions of the probationary period for a pre- 201 tenured faculty member as described within this section shall be maintained in the dean's 202 office of that faculty member's college and access to it shall be governed by the university's 203 policy on "Access to Official Professional Staff Files" (E31.0). 204

4 205 g. Extensions to the probationary period for a pre-tenured faculty member as described 206 within this section shall not increase the individual faculty member's expectations for 207 achievement towards tenure. 208 209 5. Advanced Notice of Non-reappointment During the Probationary Period 210 211 1.1.1 Except in situations of financial exigency (E22.0) or program discontinuance 212 (E20.0), written notice of non-reappointment to the tenure-track or of intention not to 213 recommend reappointment to the tenure-track shall be given to the affected faculty member by 214 the dean as follows: 215 1.2 216 a. In the first year of a tenure-track appointment, notice of non-reappointment must be given: 217 218 a.iv.1. Before the start of classes in the spring semester. In this case, the faculty 219 member's contract ends at the end of the current contract period. 220 221 a.iv.2. If notice is not given by the start of classes for spring semester, notice of 222 non-reappointment must be given before June 30. In this case, the faculty member 223 will be offered a contract for the following fall semester only. 224 225 b. In the second year of a tenure-track appointment, notice of non-reappointment must be 226 given before the start of classes in spring semester. The faculty member’s contract ends at 227 the end of the current contract period. 228 229 c. After two or more years of tenure-track service, notice of intent not to reappoint to the 230 tenure-track must be given by 30 June of the current contract year; in which case the 231 tenure-track faculty member will be offered a terminal contract for one additional 232 academic year. 233 234 d. Criteria for Granting Tenure 235 236 The view that teaching is the foremost activity of the RIT faculty is deeply rooted in the university's 237 traditions. While teaching will continue to be a hallmark of RIT, scholarship is of significant 238 importance, and service is also central to the academic endeavor. 239 240 1.2.1 1. Criteria 241 1.3 242 a. University Criteria 243 244 a.i. Teaching 245 246 Teaching, see E4.0: An effective teacher, among other things, communicates special 247 knowledge and expertise with sensitivity towards students' needs and abilities. This 248 entails selection and use of appropriate instructional methods and materials and 249 providing fair, useful and timely evaluation of the quality of the learner's work. 250 251 Evaluation of teaching must include a conscientious effort to obtain and consider 252 information that relates directly to teaching and learning and makes effective 253 classroom performance possible. This includes the review of student and peer 254 evaluations. 255 256 ii. Scholarship 257

5 258 Scholarship, (see E4.0): Documented, peer-reviewed, and disseminated disciplinary 259 and interdisciplinary scholarship of discovery, teaching/pedagogy, integration, and/or 260 application form a foundational component of a faculty member's career activities. 261 262 iii Service 263 264 Service, (see E4.0): While teaching and scholarship are the fundamental tenure-track 265 faculty responsibilities, service performed by faculty members is also an indispensable 266 part of the university's daily life. Tenure-track faculty at all ranks are expected to 267 engage in service, though the type and amount of service will vary over a faculty 268 member's career. 269 270 iv.Balance 271 272 No faculty member has to be deeply engaged in all of the foregoing activities at any 273 one time. Rather, specific forms of endeavor should be planned and agreed upon to the 274 end that full opportunity is provided for individual and professional development and 275 enhancement. 276 277 b. College Expectations 278 279 Each college shall develop and publish its own specific tenure expectations, as well 280 as acceptable forms of documentation based on the general criteria of this policy. 281 Expectations shall be approved by the tenure-track faculty of the individual colleges and then 282 be approved by the Academic Senate. College expectations for tenure and for acceptable 283 forms of documentation shall be no less specific than, and must be consistent with, this policy. 284 The expectations used for granting tenure, including specific qualities sought and 285 achievements shall be defined in each college's published tenure policies. Faculty within each 286 administrative unit may define specific standards or qualities related to scholarship that are 287 consistent with college policy. All college tenure policies shall be reviewed by the university 288 president and made available through the provost's office. 289 290 2. Statement of Expectations and Plan of Work 291 292 The initial Statement of Expectations provides the framework, or general parameters, for the 293 faculty member's agreement for hire and initial appointment. Updated Statements of 294 Expectations may modify the candidate-specific expectations, and changes to university and 295 college tenure policy that take effect before a candidate's Comprehensive Mid-tenure Review 296 may affect the policy and criteria used in evaluating that candidate. Changes to university and 297 college tenure policy that take effect after a candidate's Comprehensive Mid-tenure Review will 298 not be used in the candidate's tenure evaluation process. The annual Plan of Work (E7.0) 299 includes specific annual goals toward meeting the Statement of Expectations. In the Statement 300 of Expectations, the dean, department head and the tenure-track faculty member might choose 301 to weight items for subsequent annual Plans of Work. Each year, tenure-track faculty should 302 reflect on the past year's teaching, scholarship and service. In a written assessment, they should 303 show how those activities met goals in the previous Plan of Work. 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312

6 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 NTID Tenure Expectations 324 325 The primary context for tenure review is the candidate’s Statement(s) of Expectations as 326 well as his/her annual expectations during the probationary period. While individual 327 expectations will differ in detail, in general, a candidate must satisfy expectations defined 328 under each of following four categories: 1) Teaching and/or Tutoring, 2) Communication, 3) 329 Scholarship, and 4) Service. 330 331 1. Teaching and/or Tutoring 332 333 1.a Teaching 334 335 NTID faculty members are expected to demonstrate high quality and effective teaching that 336 is respectful of students and facilitates their learning. To accomplish this, it is expected that 337 faculty will maintain high standards in all aspects of effective teaching, including the range 338 and depth of topics covered, the quality of course materials, and the currency of course 339 content. In support of successful teaching, it is expected that a faculty member’s teaching 340 activities will demonstrate a commitment to student success, and to continual improvement 341 in their own teaching and learning. 342 343 Expectations for teaching extend beyond assigned courses. Faculty members are also 344 required to contribute to the college's mission by participating in activities which may 345 include but are not limited to: mentoring junior faculty, directing individual studies, 346 involving students in research, directing internships, designing and revising courses, 347 providing thoughtful student career mentoring and advising, and participating in 348 curriculum design or revisions. 349 350 Evidence of teaching quality and effectiveness shall be in the form of student evaluations, 351 peer evaluations, documentation related to course/curriculum development, and supporting 352 letters. 353 354 1.b Tutoring 355 356 Tutoring may be a major component of their primary responsibility or a minor one, 357 combined with traditional classroom teaching. Effective tutoring involves the successful 358 application of educational principles combined with an understanding of individual student 359 needs and learning styles necessary to ensure student success. Because tutoring takes place 360 outside of the traditional classroom, tutors are also expected to develop and maintain 361 working relationships with the primary instructor of the courses they support. Tutors are 362 also expected to maintain currency in the content area in which they support students and 363 demonstrate a continual improvement in their approach to teaching, tutoring and learning. 364 365 Expectations for tutoring extend beyond assigned courses. Faculty members are also 7 366 required to contribute to the college's mission by participating in activities which may 367 include but are not limited to: mentoring junior faculty, directing individual studies, 368 involving students in research, and providing thoughtful student career mentoring and 369 advising. 370 371 2. Communication 372 373 At NTID, communication is understood to mean communication with people who are deaf 374 and people who are hearing in all modalities combined with sensitivity to deaf cultural 375 issues. 376 377 NTID faculty are expected to strive for, achieve, and maintain the ability to communicate in 378 American Sign Language1 (ASL) at a level of vocabulary, grammatical accuracy, 379 comprehension, and fluency that allows effective participation in communication situations 380 applicable to work and social topics. In consideration of the needs of the academic and social 381 environment of NTID, the target goal, established by the 1991 Communication Task Force, 382 is an ADVANCED level of skill as measured by the Sign Language Proficiency Interview2 383 (SLPI). 384 385 A rating of INTERMEDIATE PLUS is acceptable only where the candidate can clearly show 386 strong evidence of progress and sustained effort toward an advanced rating. A candidate 387 who does not have an SLPI rating of ADVANCED should assemble a portfolio, the contents 388 of which cumulatively demonstrate the candidate’s ability to communicate effectively in ASL 389 inside and outside the classroom. The portfolio might include such components as 390 SRS/SRATE ratings related to communication skills; written evaluations by proficient users 391 of ASL; evidence of successful participation in sign communication development activities 392 such as ASL classes, individual tutoring, and videotaping of classroom performance; records 393 of involvement with student clubs and other extra-curricular student activities, and evidence 394 of interactions with the deaf community on and off campus. Other forms of evidence may 395 also be included. 396 397 NTID faculty are also expected to strive for, achieve, and maintain the ability to use spoken 398 communication strategies and techniques. Spoken communication is considered to be speech, 399 with or without voice, used expressively and/or receptively, alone or to complement a 400 message communicated with signs. Although no skill level is specified, faculty are expected to 401 participate in learning activities whereby they develop a knowledge of specific spoken 402 communication strategies and classroom techniques and their applicability in 403 communication situations. Accordingly, candidates must include documentation of learning 404 activities related to spoken communication. 405 406 3. Scholarship 407 408 Tenure-track faculty are required to demonstrate excellence in the pursuit of scholarship 409 and professional activities in accordance with both the RIT definition of scholarship3 and the 410 individual candidate’s annual expectations. The expectation is that scholarship will be peer- 411 reviewed and disseminated. Scholarship which has been disseminated but not yet reviewed 412 by peers external to the Institute may be submitted as part of the candidate’s portfolio, but 413 will not carry equal weight. Scholarly activities should have some relevance to the primary

1 1 According to the Communication Task Force Report, approved by the college faculty in February, 1991, “ASL fluency is 2 defined somewhat broadly to include those who may use an English-like word order and incorporate signing space, 3 directionality, and other features which are characteristics of ASL vocabulary and its principles, and strong sign reception 4 abilities.” 5 2 Candidates should refer to Appendix K for detail and clarification related to sign language achievement and SLPI ratings. 6 3 See Appendix G for the RIT definition of scholarship.

8 414 area of professional responsibility. Materials stemming from these activities may be 415 produced in traditional, digital or other electronic formats. For the purpose of tenure 416 consideration, the major elements of endeavor related to scholarship and professional 417 activities may include one or more of the following: 418 419 (a) primary or joint authorship of articles in professional journals, books, book chapters or 420 other peer-reviewed publications. 421 422 (b) creation of work4 shown in international, national, state, or regional galleries, museums 423 and public display areas and/or demonstration of participation in other related artistic 424 endeavors at an equivalent level. 425 (c) presentation of papers, workshops and other training activities at state, national or 426 international professional society meetings. 427 428 (d) primary or joint authorship, direction, design, or performance in theatre production. 429 430 (e) receipt or award of grants which support scholarship. 431 432 4. Service 433 434 Following the RIT definition of service,5 the tenure candidate should have made meritorious 435 contributions to the college or university at large in one or more of the following ways: 436 437 (a) service as department chair6 438 439 (b) service within the department, e.g. department coordinator, department committees. 440 441 (c) service on college or university committees. 442 443 (d) contributions towards student recruitment, retention, and placement. 444 445 (e) service that supports and enhances the campus community through complementary 446 education, student organizations, and special programs and events. 447 448 (f) service to the community that advances public confidence in NTID as a college and RIT 449 as an institute of higher education. 450 451 (g) service to community agencies and organizations that advance special NTID and RIT 452 interests. 453 454 (h) service to the profession through participation in state, national or international 455 societies, committees, or organizations. 456 457 (j) other community service in the public interest. 458 459 460 e. The Tenure Process

7 4 See Appendix H for guidance on the definition of “creative work.” 8 5 See Appendix J for the RIT definition of service. 9 6 In very unusual circumstances, the primary responsibility of a pre-tenured faculty member, as laid out in his/her 10 Statement of Expectations and annual plans of work, may be academic administration. Where such a case arises, 11 corresponding weight to the performance of those responsibilities must be given in any tenure-related evaluation. 9 461 462 The administration of the tenure granting process shall be consistent with university policy and under the 463 direction of the provost. 464 465 a. Documentation 466 467 1. Content 468 469 All tenure recommendations shall be supported by available documentation. At a minimum, this 470 shall include: 471 472 • all agreements relating to the faculty member's conditions of employment (provided by 473 dean's office); 474 475 • the current and if applicable previous version(s) of the Statement of Expectations and 476 requirements with respect to tenure (provided by dean's office); 477 478 • annual reviews on record (provided by dean's office); 479 480 • appropriate and reliable documentation related to the faculty member's teaching 481 performance, academic and professional qualifications, scholarship, and service (provided 482 by candidate); 483 484 • materials submitted by the candidate for mid-tenure review (provided by candidate); 485 486 • other material as specified in college tenure policies. 487 488 Additional information and guidance may be provided by the Office of the Provost. The 489 candidate's complete tenure review file will be assembled by his/her dean's office. 490 491 All documents provided by the candidate will be available to all internal reviewers until the 492 tenure decision is made. Review committees and recommending administrators shall use this 493 documentation at the appropriate and necessary points in the tenure process. 494 495 2. File Location

496 The documentation, as defined above, for each faculty member with a tenure-track appointment 497 shall be maintained by the dean's office of that faculty member's college and access to it shall be 498 governed by the university's policy on "Access to Official Professional Staff Files" (E31.0).

499 3. Confidentiality

500 In order to assure that recommendations are completely candid and accurate, all letters and 501 recommendations for or against the awarding of tenure shall remain confidential and shall be 502 made accessible only as specified in Tables 1 and 2. For access to Comprehensive Mid-tenure 503 review documentation see Sec. 3.b.(2)(i) and for tenure review documentation see Sec. 3.c.(2)(e). 504 505 4. Final Disposition of Documents

506 At the candidate's request, the provost shall summarize the content of all letters of review or 507 assessment with the candidate while maintaining the confidentiality of all internal and external 508 evaluators. At the conclusion of the Mid-Tenure Comprehensive Review and the tenure review 509 processes, all documentation shall be kept on file in the Office of the Dean of the respective

10 510 college and in accordance with C22.0, Records Management Policy. 511

512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 NTID Tenure Documentation 521 522 Upon notification by the president/dean that he/she will be reviewed for either mid-tenure 523 comprehensive review or full tenure, the candidate, with the assistance of the dean’s office, 524 prepares the documentation listed below in the form of a dossier. The documentation should 525 be provided in files uploaded to a secure central repository online. The information should be 526 organized with the following filenames: 527 528 A. The candidate’s original letter of hire and Statement of Expectations with any 529 revisions thereto (added by the dean’s office). 530 B. Curriculum Vitae – The CV should document the candidate’s entire academic 531 career with accomplishments since entry onto the tenure track clearly 532 distinguished. 533 C. Statement on Teaching and/or Tutoring, with related documentation including, 534 where appropriate, a statement on the candidate’s teaching philosophy, and a list 535 of courses taught/tutored. 536 D. Statement on Communication, including SLPI rating letter and a description of 537 the candidate’s communication development and experiences. 538 E. Statement on Scholarship, with related documentation. 539 F. Statement on Service, with related documentation. 540 G. Student evaluations (SRS/SRATE results).7 541 H. External peer reviews (added by the dean’s office).8 542 J. Letters of support from peers, students, and others competent to comment on the 543 merit of the candidate’s accomplishments.9 544 K. The candidate’s annual reviews (added to the dossier by the dean’s office after the 545 department peer review). 546 547 In files C-F, the candidate should summarize his/her achievements in each area since entry 548 onto the tenure track. The four statements combined may not exceed eight single-spaced 549 pages for the comprehensive mid-tenure review and 20 pages for full tenure review, excluding 550 the SLPI rating letter.

12 7 Where a candidate’s responsibilities involve instruction or other services to students, Section G should include data on 13 summative student ratings. Data should minimally reflect a summary of ratings for a representative sampling of courses or 14 services. For some candidates, a combination of student ratings and ratings for other activities may be appropriate, including 15 those related to academic administration and leadership. 16 8 For tenure candidates only. 17 9 Occasionally, providers of support letters prefer to send their letter directly to the tenure committee through the office of 18 the AVP or president/dean. 11 551 552 In addition, the candidate may submit any material in a separate electronic folder that he/she 553 feels would advance his/her opportunity to be awarded tenure. The material should support 554 and provide evidence of the statements made and the accomplishments cited in the 555 candidate’s vitae and written statement, and should be clearly labeled to support relevant 556 sections of the statement narrative.10 557 558 Before mid-tenure review begins, the dean’s office adds A from the list above to the dossier. 559 Before tenure review begins, the dean’s office adds A and H. from the list above to the dossier. 560 After review of the dossier by the department peers, but before the tenure committee review, 561 the dean’s office adds the candidate’s annual reviews (labelled “K” above), the department 562 head’s confidential review and the department peer reviews to the dossier. 563 564 b. Annual and Comprehensive Mid-tenure Reviews 565 566 1. Annual Review

567 The content and process for annual reviews are given in E7.0. Although tenure-review committees are 568 not bound by any tenure implication contained in annual reviews, such reviews made during a 569 candidate's probationary period are an important measure of a candidate's progress toward tenure 570 and must be considered along with all other evidence. If the college has special areas of 571 competence to be emphasized or if there is any change in the original Statement of Expectations 572 with respect to tenure, candidates must be clearly informed of this and they must be consistent with 573 Section 2.a.2 of this policy. 574 575 During the tenure probationary period, the annual reviews will conclude with a statement indicating 576 whether current performance would normally lead to a recommendation for tenure. Colleges that 577 have their own annual tenure review process that leads to a separate annual tenure review letter 578 for tenure-track faculty may use that letter in lieu of a statement in the annual review referenced 579 in E7.0. 580 581 2. Comprehensive Mid-tenure Review 582 583 1.4 The purpose of the comprehensive mid-tenure review is to provide preliminary feedback to 584 the candidate midway through his or her probationary period on the degree to which the candidate 585 is making satisfactory progress towards tenure. The review shall cover all performance in all the 586 areas required for tenure. It will provide advice and counsel regarding achievement of tenure. 587 [These provisions apply only to those who enter the tenure track in fall 2009 and beyond.]. 588 1.5 589 a. Timing: As part of the tenure process, tenure-track faculty members will undergo a 590 comprehensive review process during the third year of their six-year probationary period. 591 Tenure-track faculty who were granted credit towards tenure will undergo the comprehensive 592 review process during the second year of their probationary period. 593 594 b. Documentation: Candidates will provide documentation as specified in the college's tenure 595 guidelines. External letters shall not be a component of the required documentation for mid- 596 tenure comprehensive review. 597 598 c. Department Head: The department head shall provide a written assessment of the 599 candidate's appropriate progress towards tenure from the perspective of colleague, 600 supervisor, and administrator based upon the candidate's documentation. The department

19 10 Candidates should expect that additional material or clarification may be requested by peers during the departmental 20 review period and/or by the college tenure committee. Candidates are therefore advised that they may wish to have 21 supporting documentation prepared in advance so that, if requested, they can provide information in a timely manner.

12 601 head's written assessment of whether the candidate is making satisfactory or unsatisfactory 602 progress toward tenure shall be forwarded with the candidate's documentation to the college 603 tenure committee. 604 605 d. Input from Department Tenured Faculty: The committee shall seek letters from 606 tenured department members that contain comments that can be substantiated regarding 607 whether or not the candidate is making satisfactory progress towards tenure. Input from each 608 tenured faculty member within the department shall be sought. If letters are not received from 609 all tenured faculty members, the tenure committee should make an additional attempt to 610 obtain input from all tenured faculty. 611 612 e. Committee: The review will be conducted by the college tenure committee or by 613 another equivalent committee established by the college. The exact model for an equivalent 614 committee must be developed and approved by the college faculty and dean. 615 616 f. Schedule: Each college will establish its own dates and process for receiving 617 documentation from candidates and for communicating with them. The schedule shall ensure 618 that input is received by the provost no later than April 1. Upon initial communication with 619 the candidate regarding collection of documentation, the Comprehensive Mid-tenure Review 620 begins. 621 622 g. Evaluation: In its review of the faculty documentation, the committee shall 623 prepare a letter that discusses its analysis of the candidate's strengths and weaknesses, 624 stating whether current performance would normally lead to a recommendation for tenure 625 under current guidelines and offering guidance for continued improvement. The committee's 626 letter shall include a summary of the departmental faculty letters. The committee letter should 627 contain no information that could reveal the identity of an individual departmental faculty 628 member because the letter will be made accessible to the candidate at the end of the mid- 629 tenure review process. If the faculty member had received a tenure probationary period 630 extension, the reasons behind this extension will not be disclosed within the committee's 631 letter. The committee shall forward its letter of review and all documentation to the dean. 632 633 After review of the candidate's complete file, the dean will forward the committee's letter, the 634 candidate's documentation, the department head's letter and a separate dean's 635 recommendation letter to the provost. 636 637 After review of the candidate's complete file, the provost's comments on the candidate's 638 progress toward tenure will be sent in letter form to the dean. The dean and the candidate's 639 department head will discuss the Comprehensive Mid-tenure Review with the candidate. 640 641 Like annual reviews, a Comprehensive Mid-tenure Review is a measure of a candidate's 642 progress toward tenure and an opportunity to provide guidance for continued growth. It 643 cannot, however, predict the eventual tenure decision, whether positive or negative. 644 645 h. Access to Comprehensive Mid-Tenure Review Documents: The letters of review 646 or assessment from the department head, dean, committee, and provost shall be made 647 accessible to the candidate by the dean at the end of the mid-tenure review process. However, 648 all other letters, including those from individual department members shall remain 649 confidential and will not be made accessible to the candidate. The purpose of the 650 Comprehensive Mid-tenure Review process is to provide advice and council regarding the 651 achievement of tenure. To maximize the value of that advice and council, at the conclusion of 652 the process, the candidate's department head shall receive the department faculty letters. The 653 letters of review or assessment from the department head, dean, committee, and provost from 654 the Comprehensive Mid-tenure Review shall be included in the tenure documentation at the 655 end of the probationary period when the candidate is considered for tenure. See Table 1 of 13 656 this policy for a table describing access to documentation. 657 658

664 NTID Comprehensive Mid-Tenure Review

665 The Comprehensive Mid-tenure Review of tenure-track faculty will be conducted by the 666 NTID tenure committee at the beginning of a candidate’s third year in a tenure-track 667 position. (Where faculty have been given credit towards tenure, the above-cited RIT policy 668 will apply.) The review will include documentation submitted by the candidate and a series 669 of assessments of the candidate’s progress to date toward achievement of the kind of 670 performance that would normally lead to a recommendation for tenure.11 671 672 The candidate submits his/her portfolio on-line in pdf format by September 1. 673 674 • Department head review 675 676 The candidate’s department head prepares an assessment of the candidate’s performance to 677 date relative to each of the four major expectations for tenure (Appendix B.1). The review is 678 submitted to the office of the president/dean by October 20. 679 680 • Department peer review 681 682 On October 5, the tenured faculty of the department begin their individual review of the 683 candidate’s portfolio. Each faculty member submits his/her assessment of the candidate’s 684 performance relative to each of the four major expectations for tenure to the office of the 685 AVP on the Peer Recommendation Form (Appendix B.2) by October 20. 686 687 • Tenure committee review 688 689 On October 25, the president/dean submits the candidate’s dossier to the tenure committee 690 including the candidate’s portfolio, the assessments of the candidate’s department peers and 691 of the department head, and copies of the candidate’s annual reviews. 692 693 The committee schedules a meeting to begin review of the documentation. At this meeting, it 694 clarifies the candidate’s primary area of job responsibility and associated expectations. 695

22 11 See Appendix D.1

14 696 After it has completed its preliminary review of the candidate’s dossier, the committee 697 determines if additional or clarifying information is necessary. If so, the committee develops 698 a list of questions for the candidate and sends this to the candidate through the office of the 699 AVP. The candidate has one week to respond, either in writing or in video format, after 700 receipt of the request. 701 702 The committee next conducts at least one meeting during which it develops a report 703 reflecting its judgment as to the candidate’s progress towards tenure. The report, written by 704 the committee chairperson12 using the form provided (Appendix B.3) identifies the strengths 705 and weaknesses in the candidate’s performance to date and offers an opinion as to whether 706 he/she is making satisfactory progress towards tenure. Conflicting opinions among 707 committee members should be clearly stated. The form is signed by each committee member 708 and delivered to the office of the president/dean by January 15. 709 710 711 712 713 714 • President/dean confidential review 715 716 After reviewing all the documentation, the president/dean prepares his/her own summary 717 (Appendix B.4). This summary, together with all associated documentation pertaining to the 718 candidate, is forwarded to the provost by February 8. 719 720 • Provost review 721 722 Having reviewed all the documentation, the provost prepares a letter summarizing his/her 723 assessment of the candidate’s performance to date. The letter is forwarded to the 724 president/dean, who meets with the candidate and the candidate’s department head to 725 review it and the separate assessments of the tenure committee, the candidate’s department 726 head, and the president/dean. At the end of this meeting, a copy of the provost’s letter is 727 made available to the candidate. 728 729 c. Tenure Review and Recommendations 730 731 When an Assistant Professor is being evaluated for tenure, s/he must be simultaneously evaluated for 732 promotion to the rank of Associate Professor. Each college will establish a procedure to ensure that it 733 recommends to the provost either approval or denial of both tenure and promotion. In addition, each 734 college will establish a schedule consistent with university policy to receive and process materials that 735 support the review for tenure and simultaneous promotion (when appropriate) of the tenure-track 736 faculty within the academic unit. This schedule shall ensure that the College Tenure Committee's 737 recommendation is forwarded to the college dean no later than 15 January and the dean's letter is 738 forward to the provost no later than 8 February. 739 740 1. Department 741 742 The candidate's department head assesses the candidate's performance throughout the 743 probationary period as part of the annual review process. The department head shall provide a 744 written assessment of the candidate's progress towards tenure from the perspective of colleague, 745 supervisor, and administrator based upon the candidate's documentation. The department head's 746 letter shall include a clear vote (yes or no) in regards to tenure attainment of the candidate 747 followed by an explanation of the vote. The department head's written assessment of the

23 12 In cases where the committee chair and the candidate belong to the same academic unit, the chairperson delegates the 24 preparation of the final committee report to another member of the committee. 15 748 candidate's progress toward tenure shall be forwarded to the college tenure committee according 749 to the college schedule that ensures the committee can complete their review and letter to the 750 college dean no later than 15 January. 751 752 2. College Tenure Committee 753 754 The committee shall evaluate the dossier, weighing the strengths and weaknesses of the tenure 755 candidate in fulfilling their personal Statement of Expectations and with respect to university 756 tenure criteria, expectations of the candidate's college expressed in college tenure policy, and 757 administrative-unit specific standards or qualities, where applicable. 758 759 a. Membership: When there are candidates for tenure in a college, a committee shall 760 be assembled - six tenured members from the candidate's college and another appointed 761 by the Academic Senate from a list of nominees elected by the tenured and tenure-track 762 faculty of each college. Department heads may serve on tenure committees except in 763 cases where the faculty candidate's appointment resides within the same department as 764 the department head. Each college shall determine its procedure for electing the 765 members, ensuring that there is at least one continuing member to provide for continuity 766 over time. The Academic Senate shall determine its procedure for appointing the outside 767 member specified above. The committee shall hold its initial meeting according to 768 college policy. It is recommended that the initial meeting be held by the end of the spring 769 semester prior to the academic year in which the tenure evaluation is to occur, but no 770 later than 15 September of the evaluation year. The committee shall select its chair from 771 its membership. 772 773 Elections for each tenure committee shall be conducted before 1 March of the prior 774 academic year. The college tenure policy shall ensure that the composition of the college 775 tenure committee has broad representation and avoids undue weighting of a single unit. 776 777 In the case of a college with fewer than eighteen (18) tenured faculty eligible to serve on 778 a tenure committee and with fewer than six departments or academic units, a special 779 tenure committee shall be formed. The special committee shall be comprised of four 780 tenured members of the faculty of the college, two tenured faculty with at least two years' 781 experience on tenure committees from other colleges appointed by the Academic Senate 782 from a list of nominees elected by the tenured and tenure-track faculty of each college, 783 and another faculty member appointed by the Academic Senate from a list of nominees 784 elected by the tenured and tenure-track faculty of each college. Colleges with fewer than 785 eighteen (18) tenured faculty shall not provide representatives to other small college 786 special committees, but those colleges may choose to nominate tenured faculty to serve 787 as external members on other college tenure committees if desired. 788 789 b. Input from Tenured Department Faculty: It is the responsibility of the tenured faculty to 790 participate in the tenure process at RIT. The tenure committee, therefore, shall solicit a 791 confidential letter from each tenured faculty member within the candidate's department. 792 The letter should include a clear recommendation for or against tenure accompanied by 793 a supporting explanation. If letters are not received from all tenured faculty members 794 within the department, the tenure committee shall attempt to obtain input from those 795 faculty who did not respond. 796 797 c. External Review Letters: The committee shall obtain a list of five names of external 798 reviewers from the candidate. After consultation with the candidate's department head, 799 the committee shall seek to obtain a minimum of four letters from external reviewers in 800 the candidate's field of scholarship. 801 802 The committee shall seek letters two letters from the list of reviewers suggested by the

16 803 candidate and at least two letters from reviewers not on the candidate's list. A maximum 804 of one reviewer may be a co-author and all other external reviewers shall not have 805 personal ties or conflicts of interest (C4.0) with the candidate. In all cases, the reviewers 806 should have fields of study within the candidate's expertise. Letters from thesis advisors 807 are not to be used in the official list of external letters; they may, however, be included in 808 the dossier as further evidence of the candidate's work. 809 810 Each reviewer will be requested to evaluate the candidate's scholarship according to 811 university tenure criteria and college tenure expectations. If fewer than four letters are 812 received, the committee chair should make an additional attempt to obtain four letters, 813 making a reasonable effort to ensure two letters are from the candidate's list of potential 814 reviewers. The external review letters will be received by the dean's office of the 815 candidate. 816 817 d. Evaluation: Recommendation for approval for tenure by the college tenure 818 committee shall require a minimum 2/3 majority in favor as determined by secret vote. 819 All members of the committee must vote; there shall be no abstentions or avoidances of 820 voting by absence. Recommendation for approval or non-approval of tenure, a written 821 statement of reasons for approval or non-approval, and the vote shall be forwarded by 822 the chair of the tenure committee to the dean of the college by 15 January. If the 823 candidate for tenure had received an extension to his/her tenure probationary period, the 824 reasons behind this extension will not be disclosed within the committee's letter. 825 826 e. Access to Tenure Review Documents: All letters of review or assessment shall remain 827 confidential and will not be made accessible to the candidate. See Table 2 of this policy 828 for a table describing access to documentation. 829 830 f. Joint Appointments: In the case of a joint academic appointment that crosses two 831 colleges, a joint tenure review committee shall be formed and hold its initial meeting 832 according to college schedule of the candidate's primary appointment. The joint 833 committee shall be comprised of four tenured members of the faculty of the college in 834 which the candidate's primary appointment resides (and in which tenure will reside, if 835 granted), two members from the college in which the candidate's secondary appointment 836 resides, and another appointed by the Academic Senate from a list of nominees elected 837 by the tenured and tenure-track faculty of each college. The committee shall review the 838 candidate based on university tenure criteria and college tenure expectations of the 839 primary college, the candidate's documentation, and the letters of review or assessment 840 from the department head, dean, committee, and provost from the Comprehensive Mid- 841 tenure Review. 842 1.6 843 1.7 3. Dean of the College 844 1.8 845 a. Shortly after the membership of the college tenure committee is determined by the 846 above process, the dean shall announce to the college the names of the committee 847 members. (The records of the election process shall be kept on file in the dean's office 848 until 15 November and be placed at the disposal of those who wish to examine the 849 process.) 850 851 b. The dean will also call the committee to its initial organizational meeting. This 852 meeting shall be called according to college schedule of the candidate's primary 853 appointment, but no later than 30 September of the academic year in which the tenure 854 evaluation is to occur, and preferably by the end of the spring semester prior. During 855 that meeting, the dean shall: 856

17 857 • Announce to the committee the names of the candidates for tenure. 858 859 • Provide the documentation, the written recommendation of the department head 860 and the letters of review or assessment from the department head, dean, committee, 861 and provost from the Comprehensive Mid-tenure Review. 862 863 • Instruct the committee to elect a chair from the faculty elected in 3.c.2 above. The 864 dean shall depart before the election of the chair. 865 866 c. The dean of the college shall prepare a tenure recommendation, separate from 867 that of the college tenure committee recommendation. The dean shall write a 868 recommendation, based upon university and college tenure policy, an assessment of the 869 candidate documentation, the tenure committee's analysis and the opinions of the 870 external evaluators consulted during the external review. That document shall be 871 forwarded with the committee's letter, the department head's letter, and the candidate's 872 documentation to the provost by 8 February. 873 874 1 4. The Provost 875 2 876 a. The provost shall review the candidate's documentation, the recommendations of the 877 college tenure committee, department head, and dean and form a tenure recommendation. 878 The provost may call upon the candidate, the department head, the college tenure 879 committee, and/or the dean for clarification or additional information and may meet with 880 any of them to reconcile opposing views. 881 b. University Tenure Review Committee: If a college tenure committee and dean are in 882 dispute over a candidate's viability, and/or the provost disagrees with the conclusion 883 reached by the dean as representative of the college regarding the candidate's viability, 884 the provost may convene a meeting of the chairs of all the college tenure committees. That 885 group shall review all the available documentation and advise the provost toward a final 886 decision, guided by the specific tenure expectations outlined by the candidate's college. 887 The group shall relate its findings in writing to the provost. 888 889 c. When satisfied on all points, the provost shall make an official recommendation to the 890 president that includes all prior recommendations received. 891 892 3 5. The President 893 4 894 The president shall make the final decision to grant or deny tenure. 895 896 d. Granting or Denial of Tenure 897 898 The granting or denial of tenure shall be in the form of a written communication from the provost to 899 the candidate no later than 15 April. In the case of denial, the letter shall set forth the specific reasons, 900 the college tenure committee vote, the university tenure review committee vote, if it was involved, and 901 the recommendations from the department head and dean. 902 903 If granted, tenure becomes effective on the first day of the following contract year; if tenure is denied, 904 the candidate shall have the option of a one-year contract for the following academic year. 905 906 If a candidate wishes to appeal a tenure denial, the Institute Faculty Grievance Procedures are 907 available to the extent provided in E24.0. Such appeal shall be limited to the question of whether the 908 policies and procedures set forth in this tenure policy have been followed in the candidate's case. 909

18 910 4. Expedited Tenure Review 911 912 a.Purpose 913 914 An expedited tenure review may be requested in the infrequent case where the university, as part of a 915 faculty search process, wishes to hire a faculty member with tenure (see E4.0.1 and E8.0). 916 917 b. Review Process 918 919 The request for an expedited tenure review shall be initiated by the person who would become the 920 candidate's immediate administrative supervisor, and the request for review must be approved by either 921 the provost or the president. Upon approval, the provost or the president will ask the dean of the college 922 in which the tenure will reside to have the college's tenure committee evaluate the candidate for tenure 923 in an accelerated time frame. 924 925 During the evaluation process, input from committee members can occur electronically however, if one 926 or more members of the college's tenure committee are not available during this accelerated time frame, 927 each such member shall be substituted by an alternate elected by the faculty of the college. If one or 928 more members of the college's tenure committee are at a faculty rank lower than that sought for the 929 incoming candidate, each such member shall be substituted by an alternate from the college's promotion 930 committee or elected by the faculty of the college. Each college shall ensure that a full tenure committee 931 can be assembled as needed for the purpose of this expedited tenure review and that the committee will 932 be available to complete the expedited review process. If the tenure committee's external member is not 933 available during the accelerated time frame the Academic Senate shall appoint a substitute. 934 935 This expedited process is normally considered in the case where the candidate currently holds tenure at 936 an accredited institution of higher education. In these instances, the dean will provide the tenure 937 committee with all the application materials collected by the search committee, including at a minimum 938 the candidate's CV, list of scholarly work, reference letters, and teaching evaluations. The tenured 939 faculty with equivalent or higher rank (of that sought for the faculty candidate) from the academic unit 940 where this candidate would reside will be notified by the committee that the candidate's file is available 941 for their review. Within seven (7) business days of the notification, each invited faculty member may 942 submit a written recommendation (paper or electronic) to the committee. The letter should include a 943 clear recommendation for or against expedited tenure at hire accompanied by a supporting explanation. 944 945 Within ten (10) business days of the receipt of the complete application materials from the dean, the 946 tenure committee shall evaluate the candidate and provide the dean with a recommendation on tenure 947 for the candidate, along with the committee vote and the signatures (physical or electronic) of all 948 committee members. Recommendation for approval for expedited tenure by the college tenure committee 949 shall require a minimum 2/3 majority in favor as determined by secret vote. The committee may 950 alternatively make a recommendation for an appropriate expedited period of review for tenure upon 951 hire. 952 953 The dean will forward the tenure committee's evaluation and recommendation as well as his/her 954 recommendation to the provost. Based on those recommendations, the provost shall make a 955 recommendation and forward it along with the other recommendations to the president. The president 956 shall make the final decision on granting tenure or granting a reduced tenure probationary period in 957 accordance with Section 2.c.2.i of this policy. 958 959 In rare and unusual cases where the candidate does not currently hold tenure at an accredited institution 960 of higher education, the dean will provide the tenure committee with all the application materials 961 collected by the search committee, as well as additional material provided by the candidate that is 962 viewed by the tenure committee as necessary and consistent with the college's tenure policy. Within four 963 weeks of the receipt of the complete application materials, using the process stipulated previously in this 964 section, the tenure committee shall evaluate the candidate and provide the dean with a recommendation

19 965 on tenure for the candidate. The dean will forward the tenure committee's evaluation and 966 recommendation along with his/her recommendation to the provost. Based on those recommendations, 967 the provost shall make a recommendation and forward it along with the other recommendations to the 968 president. The president shall make the final decision on granting tenure or granting a reduced tenure 969 probationary period in accordance with Section 2.c.2 of this policy. 970

979 NTID Tenure Review

980 The candidate submits his/her portfolio on-line in pdf format by September 1. 981 982 • Department head recommendation 983 984 Using the form provided in Appendix C.1, the candidate’s department head submits his/her 985 recommendation for or against tenure, supported by comments regarding the candidate’s 986 performance relative to each of the four major expectations for tenure to the office of the 987 president/dean by October 20. 988 989 • Department peer recommendations 990 991 On October 5, the tenured faculty of the department begin their individual review of the 992 candidate’s portfolio and the external review letters. Department peer recommendations for or 993 against tenure, supported by comments concerning the candidate’s performance relative to each of 994 the four major expectations for tenure, are submitted to the office of the AVP on the Peer 995 Recommendation Form (Appendix C.2) by October 20. 996 997 • External review 998 999 A critical component of tenure review is the participation of a minimum of four reviewers, external 1000 to RIT, who will evaluate the candidate’s scholarship. Reviewers will normally, but not necessarily, 1001 come from an academic setting, but in all cases, should have expertise in the candidate’s field of

20 1002 scholarship. 1003 1004 By May 20 of his/her sixth year, the candidate for tenure review submits a list with the 1005 names, positions and contact information of five potential peer reviewers to the chairperson 1006 of the tenure committee. The list may not include dissertation advisors and may include the 1007 name of only one co-author. In addition, and in the same time frame, the candidate’s 1008 department head submits a different list with at least three names of potential peer 1009 reviewers to the chairperson of the tenure committee. The chairperson of the tenure 1010 committee immediately communicates with the individuals named to ascertain their 1011 willingness to serve as reviewers, with the goal of securing agreement to review the candidate 1012 from at least two individuals from each list. 1013 1014 In the event that this process fails to secure four reviewers, the chairperson of the tenure 1015 committee seeks additional names, equally, from the candidate and the candidate’s 1016 department head. Upon confirmation that a reviewer has accepted the invitation, the 1017 committee chairperson sends a copy of the Guidelines for External Reviewers13 together 1018 with a request14 to the reviewer to submit the review to the office of the president/dean by 1019 September 30. The tenure committee chairperson must carefully document all steps to 1020 secure external review letters. In the event that the requisite number of external letters is not 1021 forthcoming, the candidate will not be penalized. 1022 1023 • Tenure Committee15 recommendation 1024 1025 On October 25, the president/dean submits the candidate’s dossier to the tenure committee, 1026 including the candidate’s portfolio, the recommendations of the candidate’s department peers and 1027 of the department head, copies of the candidate’s annual reviews, the external review letters. 1028 1029 The committee schedules a meeting to begin review of the candidate’s dossier. At this meeting, it 1030 clarifies the candidate’s primary area of job responsibility and associated expectations. 1031 1032 After it has completed its preliminary review of the candidate’s dossier, the committee determines 1033 if additional or clarifying information is necessary. If so, the committee develops a list of questions 1034 for the candidate and sends this to the candidate through the office of the AVP. The candidate has 1035 one week to respond, either in writing or in video format, after receipt of the request. 1036 1037 The full committee next conducts at least one meeting for the purpose of discussing the candidate’s 1038 performance relative to the tenure expectations and arriving at a recommendation for or against 1039 the award of tenure. (A recommendation in favor of tenure requires the agreement of at least five 1040 members of the committee.) The recommendation is prepared by the committee chairperson16 1041 using the form provided (Appendix C.3). Conflicting opinions among committee members should 1042 be clearly stated. The form is signed by each committee member and delivered to the office of the 1043 president/dean by January 15. 1044 1045 • President/dean confidential recommendation 1046 1047 After reviewing all of the documentation, the president/dean prepares his/her own letter of 1048 recommendation (Appendix C.4). This recommendation, together with all associated

25 13 See Appendix C.5: Tenure Review: Guidelines for External Reviewers 26 14 See Appendix C.6. 27 15 See Appendix E. 28 16 In cases where the committee chair and the candidate belong to the same academic unit, the chairperson delegates the 29 preparation of the final committee report to another member of the committee. 30 21 1049 documentation pertaining to the candidate, is forwarded to the provost by February 8. 1050 1051 • Provost recommendation 1052 1053 After reviewing the assessment of each recommending body, together with all associated 1054 documentation pertaining to the candidate, the provost prepares his/her own recommendation for 1055 the president of the university. In the event of conflicting assessments, the provost follows the 1056 procedures outlined in paragraph E5.0.3.c.4(b) of the Institute Policies and Procedures Manual. 1057 1058 • President recommendation 1059 1060 The president of the university makes a recommendation for or against tenure to the board of 1061 trustees. 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 APPENDIX A 1077 Calendar of Action for Comprehensive Mid-Tenure Review & Tenure Review 1078 1079 TIME17 ACTION 1080 1081 February Election of tenure committee members from each of the two faculty groups is completed. 1082 1083 May 1 Formation of tenure committee(s) is completed with the appointment of the outside faculty 1084 member(s) by Academic Senate. 1085 1086 May 15 Candidate is notified and given a copy of the NTID Policy on Tenure and Simultaneous 1087 Promotion to the Rank of Associate Professor. 1088 1089 May 15 President/dean convenes the tenure committee for an initial organizational meeting. The 1090 committee elects its chairperson. 1091 1092 May 20 Candidate and the candidate’s department head provide tenure committee chair with separate 1093 lists of the names of potential external reviewers.18 1094

31 17 The dates given are deadlines. Next working day will be used for any date that falls on a weekend or holiday. 32 18 Procedures regarding external letters do not apply to mid-tenure review.

22 1095 May 30 Tenure committee chairperson communicates with external reviewers and secures agreement 1096 from at least four to write reviews. 1097 1098 Sept. 1 Candidate submits his/her tenure portfolio on-line in pdf format. 1099 1100 Sept. 2 Committee chair forwards candidate materials to external reviewers. 1101 1102 Sept. 30 External peer reviews due. 1103 1104 Oct. 5 Tenured department peers begin their review of the candidate’s portfolio. 1105 1106 Oct. 20 Department head submits his/her written recommendation to the AVP. 1107 1108 Oct. 20 Department faculty peers submit individual recommendations to the AVP. . 1109 1110 Oct. 20 AVP submits the candidate’s portfolio, the department head’s recommendation, and the 1111 individual department faculty recommendations to the office of the president/dean. 1112 1113 Oct. 25 Committee receives the candidate’s dossier from the office of the president/dean and starts its 1114 deliberations. The dossier includes the candidate’s portfolio, the assessments/ 1115 recommendations of the department peers and of the department head, the candidate’s 1116 Statement of Expectations and annual reviews, and the external review letters. In the case of 1117 full tenure review, the committee also receives documentation from the candidate’s 1118 comprehensive mid-tenure review. 1119 1120 Jan. 15 Committee submits its recommendation to the president/dean. 1121 1122 Feb. 8 President/dean sends his/her confidential recommendation to the provost together with the 1123 candidate’s dossier. 1124 1125 April 15 Provost informs the candidate of the tenure decision. 1126 1127 1128 APPENDIX B.1 1129 COMPREHENSIVE MID-TENURE REVIEW 1130 Department Head Assessment Form 1131 1132 Directions 1133 The purpose of the comprehensive mid-tenure review is to provide feedback to the candidate regarding his/her 1134 progress towards tenure midway through the probationary period. 1135 1136 In this context, you are asked to assess to what extent, in your opinion, the candidate is making satisfactory 1137 progress towards promotion and tenure, providing your assessment of his/her performance to date in terms of 1138 the expectations for tenure stated in the NTID Policy on Tenure and Simultaneous Promotion to Associate 1139 Professor (pp. 8-10). 1140 1141 Please write your comments in the space provided below. Use additional pages as needed. 1142 1143 1. Teaching and/or Tutoring 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 23 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 2) Communication 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 (continue on next page) 1183 3) Scholarship 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204

24 1205 4) Service 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 In my judgment 1221 1222 ______is making satisfactory progress towards promotion and tenure. 1223 1224 ______is not making satisfactory progress towards promotion and tenure. 1225 1226 1227 Prepared by ______1228 1229 1230 Department ______1231 1232 1233 Date ______1234 1235 Return this form directly to the office of the associate vice president by October 20. 1236 1237 1238 APPENDIX B.2 1239 COMPREHENSIVE MID-TENURE REVIEW 1240 Tenured Department Peer Assessment Form 1241 1242 Directions 1243 The purpose of the comprehensive mid-tenure review is to provide feedback to the candidate regarding his/her 1244 progress towards tenure midway through the probationary period. 1245 1246 In this context, you are asked to assess to what extent, in your opinion, the candidate is making satisfactory 1247 progress towards promotion and tenure, providing your assessment of his/her performance to date in terms of 1248 the expectations for tenure stated in the NTID Policy on Tenure and Simultaneous Promotion to Associate 1249 Professor (pp. 8-10). 1250 1251 Prior to completing this form, review the candidate’s portfolio and external review letters. Please write your 1252 comments in the space provided below. Use additional pages as needed. 1253 1254 I have worked with ______for ____ years in the capacity of ______. 1255 1256 1257 1. Teaching and/or Tutoring 1258

25 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 2) Communication 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 (continue on next page) 1293 3) Scholarship 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314

26 1315 4) Service 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 In my judgment 1333 1334 ______is making satisfactory progress towards promotion and tenure. 1335 1336 ______is not making satisfactory progress towards promotion and tenure. 1337 1338 1339 Prepared by ______1340 1341 1342 Department ______1343 1344 1345 Date ______1346 1347 Return this form directly to the office of the associate vice president by October 20. 1348 1349 APPENDIX B.3 1350 COMPREHENSIVE MID-TENURE REVIEW 1351 Tenure Committee Assessment Form 1352 1353 The purpose of the comprehensive mid-tenure review is to provide feedback to the candidate regarding his/her 1354 progress towards tenure midway through the probationary period. 1355 1356 Our assessment of the candidate’s performance relative to the expectations for tenure as these are stated in the 1357 NTID Policy on Tenure and Simultaneous Promotion to Associate Professor (pp. 8-10) is as follows: 1358 1359 1. Teaching and/or Tutoring 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368

27 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 2) Communication 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 (continue on next page) 1404 3) Scholarship 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 4) Service 1421 1422 1423

28 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 In the judgment of this committee 1432 1433 ______is making satisfactory progress towards promotion and tenure. 1434 1435 ______is not making satisfactory progress towards promotion and tenure. 1436 1437 1438 1439 Committee chairperson: ______Date: ______1440 1441 1442 Committee member: ______Date: ______1443 1444 1445 Committee member: ______Date: ______1446 1447 1448 Committee member: ______Date: ______1449 1450 Committee member: ______Date: ______1451 1452 1453 Committee member: ______Date: ______1454 1455 1456 Committee member: ______Date: ______1457 1458 1459 Return this form directly to the office of the president/dean by January 15.

29 1460 APPENDIX B.4 1461 COMPREHENSIVE MID-TENURE REVIEW 1462 President/Dean Confidential Assessment Form 1463 1464 In my judgment, and on the basis of my evaluation of all available information, 1465 1466 ______is making satisfactory progress towards promotion and tenure. 1467 1468 ______is not making satisfactory progress towards promotion and tenure. 1469 1470 My assessment of the candidate’s performance relative to the expectations for tenure as these are stated in the 1471 NTID Policy on Tenure and Simultaneous Promotion to Associate Professor (pp.8-10) is as follows: 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 President/dean ______1512 1513 1514 Date ______

30 1515 APPENDIX C.1 1516 TENURE REVIEW 1517 Department Head Recommendation Form 1518 1519 I have worked with the candidate for _____ years in the capacity of ______1520 1521 In my judgment and on the basis of my evaluation of all available information, 1522 1523 ______has met the expectations for tenure. 1524 1525 ______has not met the expectations for tenure. 1526 1527 My recommendation is based upon the following assessment of the candidate’s performance relative to the 1528 expectations for tenure as these are stated in the NTID Policy on Tenure and Simultaneous Promotion to 1529 Associate Professor (pp. 8-10). 1530 1531 1. Teaching and/or Tutoring 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 2) Communication 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 (continue on next page)

31 1570 3) Scholarship 1571 1572 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 1582 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 4) Service 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 1611 1612 1613 Prepared by ______1614 1615 1616 Department ______1617 1618 1619 Date ______1620 1621 1622 1623 Return this form directly to the office of the associate vice president by October 20. 1624

32 1625 1626 APPENDIX C.2 1627 TENURE REVIEW 1628 Tenured Department Peer Recommendation Form 1629 1630 1631 I have worked with the candidate for _____ years in the capacity of ______1632 1633 In my judgment and on the basis of my evaluation of all available information, 1634 1635 ______has met the expectations for tenure. 1636 1637 ______has not met the expectations for tenure. 1638 1639 My recommendation is based upon the following assessment of the candidate’s performance relative to the 1640 expectations for tenure as these are stated in the NTID Policy on Tenure and Simultaneous Promotion to 1641 Associate Professor (pp. 8-10). 1642 1643 1. Teaching and/or Tutoring 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 2) Communication 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679

33 1680 (continue on next page) 1681 3) Scholarship 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 4) Service 1704 1705 1706 1707 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 Prepared by ______1725 1726 1727 Department ______1728 1729 1730 Date ______1731 1732 1733 1734 Return this form directly to the office of the associate vice president by October 20.

34 1735 1736 1737 APPENDIX C.3 1738 TENURE REVIEW 1739 Tenure Committee Recommendation Form 1740 1741 The recommendation of this tenure committee is: 1742 _____ number of votes in support of tenure 1743 _____ number of votes against tenure 1744 1745 It is therefore the judgment of the committee, on the basis of evaluation of all available information, that 1746 1747 ______has met the expectations for tenure 1748 1749 ______has not met the expectations for tenure 1750 1751 In the following, we provide a rationale for our judgment of whether the candidate has satisfied the expectations 1752 for tenure as these are stated in the NTID Policy on Tenure and Simultaneous Promotion to Associate Professor 1753 (pp. 8-10). 1754 1755 1. Teaching and/or Tutoring 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 1770 1771 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 2) Communication 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789

35 1790 1791 (continue on next page) 1792 3) Scholarship 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 4) Service 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826 1827 Committee chairperson: ______Date: ______1828 1829 1830 Committee member: ______Date: ______1831 1832 1833 Committee member: ______Date: ______1834 1835 1836 Committee member: ______Date: ______1837 1838 1839 Committee member: ______Date: ______1840 1841 1842 Committee member: ______Date: ______1843 1844

36 1845 Committee member: ______Date: ______1846 1847 Return this form directly to the office of the president/dean by January 15.

37 1848 APPENDIX C.4 1849 TENURE REVIEW 1850 President/Dean Confidential Recommendation Form 1851 1852 In my judgment, and on the basis of my evaluation of all available information, 1853 1854 ______has met the expectations for tenure 1855 1856 ______has not met the expectations for tenure 1857 1858 My recommendation is based upon the following assessment of the candidate’s performance relative to the 1859 expectations for tenure as these are stated in the NTID Policy on Tenure and Simultaneous Promotion to 1860 Associate Professor (pp. 8-10). 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 President/Dean ______1900 1901 1902 Date ______

38 1903 APPENDIX C.5 1904 TENURE REVIEW 1905 Sample Letter to External Reviewers Who Have Agreed to Review the Candidate’s 1906 Scholarship 1907 1908 Dear Dr. ______: 1909 1910 Thank you for your willingness to serve as an external reviewer of the scholarship of Assistant Professor 1911 ______, who is undergoing tenure review. Professor ______is a member of the Department of 1912 ______at the National Technical Institute for the Deaf (NTID) a college of Rochester Institute of 1913 Technology. 1914 1915 NTID’s mission is to: “provide deaf and hard-of-hearing students with outstanding state-of-the-art technical and 1916 professional education programs, complemented by a strong arts and sciences curriculum, that prepare them to 1917 live and work in the mainstream of a rapidly changing global community and enhance their lifelong learning. 1918 Secondarily, NTID prepares professionals to work in fields related to deafness; undertakes a program of applied 1919 research designed to enhance the social, economic and educational accommodation of deaf people; and shares 1920 its knowledge and expertise through outreach and other information dissemination programs.” 1921 1922 Your name was selected from a list of several nominees submitted to me by the candidate and the candidate’s 1923 department head. I trust you will feel free to express your views as frankly as possible. Your review will be seen 1924 by the tenured faculty in the candidate’s department, the department head, and the tenure committee as well as 1925 the president/dean of NTID and the RIT provost. It will not be seen by the candidate. 1926 1927 As an external reviewer, you are asked to assess the candidate's scholarship in his/her field after five years in 1928 the tenure-track position. Your assessment should include reference to the potential benefits of the scholarship 1929 to deaf and hard-of-hearing students. The candidate's teaching ability and general contributions to the 1930 University are being assessed internally. 1931 1932 Enclosed are the candidate's curriculum vitae and summary of scholarly accomplishments as well as examples 1933 of the candidate’s scholarship. Also enclosed is a copy of our guidelines for external reviewers, which includes 1934 the specific questions we would like you to address in your response. Finally, we also attach a summary of 1935 NTID faculty expectations, and copies of the RIT definition of scholarship and the NTID definition of creative 1936 work. Please be mindful of these documents as you prepare your assessment. 1937 1938 Based on our recent conversation confirming your agreement, we would like to receive your review by 1939 September 30. Please send your review in the pre-paid envelope enclosed with the candidate’s materials. 1940 1941 The members of the faculty and I are grateful to you for undertaking this task. You may rest assured that this 1942 procedure is not simply a formality as your views and recommendations will have an important bearing upon 1943 the future of the candidate. 1944 1945 Yours sincerely, 1946 1947 1948 Tenure committee chairperson 1949 Enclosures: 1950 Candidate’s CV and statement (scholarship section) 1951 Candidate materials pertaining to scholarship 1952 Guidelines for External Reviewers 1953 NTID Expectations & Workload Guidelines for Pre-tenure Faculty 1954 RIT definition of scholarship 1955 NTID definition of creative work (where applicable) 1956

39 1957 APPENDIX C.6 1958 TENURE REVIEW 1959 Guidelines for External Reviewers 1960 1961 1. The University is seeking an independent, unbiased assessment of the candidate's scholarship and 1962 related activities as part of the candidate’s tenure review. If you are a relative or close personal friend 1963 or if you believe that your personal relationship to the candidate is such as to affect your assessment, 1964 please disqualify yourself. If you are not familiar with tenure in an academic setting, please limit your 1965 comments to an evaluation of the candidate’s scholarly work as this relates to your field of expertise. 1966 1967 2. Prior to preparing your evaluation, please review the enclosed document “NTID faculty expectations”, 1968 which provides some important detail regarding the nature of faculty work at the National Technical 1969 Institute for the Deaf. 1970 1971 3. You are asked to provide brief comments in your assessment on each of the questions listed below to 1972 the best of your knowledge. You should also feel free to refer to any other matters, which you believe 1973 may assist the university in providing appropriate feedback to the candidate. In accordance with 1974 university policy, your evaluation of the record of scholarly performance should take into account 1975 quality, creativity, and significance for the discipline in question, including the potential benefits to 1976 deaf and hard-of-hearing students. 1977 1978 a) Were you aware of the candidate's scholarship before now? 1979 1980 b) How significant is the candidate's scholarship to the discipline and how is it relevant to the 1981 profession? 1982 1983 c) Apart from his/her scholarly work, do you know of other contributions the candidate has made to 1984 the development of the discipline, for example, through organizing conferences, activities in learned 1985 societies or governmental commissions? How significant have these activities been from the standpoint 1986 of promoting teaching and scholarship in the discipline? 1987 1988 d) Assuming that the candidate satisfies other expectations being assessed internally, is his/her 1989 scholarship, as revealed by both the quality and quantity of publications, creative work, and 1990 unpublished work, such that you are confident that he/she has earned the award of tenure? Please 1991 explain the basis of your assessment. 1992 1993 4. In writing your assessment, you are urged to be as frank and direct as possible. Please do not include 1994 your name or other means of identification in the report itself. Your review will be seen by the tenured 1995 faculty in the candidate’s department, the department head, and the tenure committee as well as the 1996 president/dean of NTID and the RIT provost. It will not be seen by the candidate. Please ensure that we 1997 receive your review by September 30.

40 1998 1999 APPENDIX D.1 2000 ACCESS TO DOCUMENTATION FOR NTID 2001 COMPREHENSIVE MID-TENURE REVIEW 2002 2003 Department Tenured Department President/ DOSSIER COMPONENTS Candidate Faculty Head Tenure Committee Dean Provost Candidate’s Portfolio Y Y Y Y Y Y Candidate Annual Reviews Y N Y Y Y Y

Department Faculty N N N Y Y Y Assessments

Department Head Assessment Y N Y Y Y Y

Tenure Committee Assessment Y N Y Y Y Y

President/Dean Assessment Y N Y N Y Y

Provost Assessment Y N Y N Y Y

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

41 2009 2010 APPENDIX D.2 2011 ACCESS TO DOCUMENTATION FOR NTID TENURE REVIEW 2012 2013 Department Tenured Department President/ DOSSIER COMPONENTS Candidate Faculty Head Tenure Committee Dean Provost Candidate’s Portfolio Y Y Y Y Y Candidate Annual Reviews Y N Y Y Y Y

Department Faculty N N N Y Y Y Recommendations

Department Head N N Y Y Y Y Recommendation

External Review Letters N Y Y Y Y Y

Tenure Committee N N N Y Y Y Recommendation

President/Dean N N N N Y Y Recommendation

42 2014 APPENDIX E 2015 TENURE COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP 2016 2017 A. Number of tenure committees 2018 2019 The number of tenure committees in any given academic year should be such that no one committee is 2020 required to conduct more than four reviews of either kind (comprehensive mid-tenure or tenure). The 2021 president/dean of NTID will determine the number of tenure committees required for each academic 2022 year. In the event that it becomes necessary to empanel more than one committee, assignment of 2023 candidates for mid-tenure and tenure review to each committee shall be conducted by the 2024 president/dean by lottery. 2025 2026 B. Membership 2027 2028 Each tenure committee will be composed of seven tenured faculty members, all of whom shall have the 2029 rank of either associate professor or full professor. Six of the members shall be elected from the college 2030 of NTID in accordance with the procedures outlined below, and the seventh shall be appointed by the 2031 Academic Senate from one of the other colleges of RIT. 2032 2033 C. Length of Term 2034 2035 In general, tenure committee members will be elected to two-year terms. To ensure compliance with 2036 RIT policy which requires that individual college procedures provide that at least one committee 2037 member will have been on the college tenure committee during the preceding year, terms will be 2038 staggered. In that way, normally, elections for only three of the needed six college-internal positions 2039 will be held in any given year. A schedule to accomplish such staggered terms will be developed by the 2040 office of the president/dean. 2041 2042 D. Committee Elections 2043 2044 NTID faculty will be arranged in two groups for the purpose of determining tenure committee 2045 membership. Three committee members will be elected from each group. In addition, to cover the 2046 eventuality that elected members may not be able to serve, one alternate will be elected from each 2047 group. 2048 Group One 2049 Department of American Sign Language and Interpreting Education 2050 Department of Communication Studies and Services 2051 Department of Science and Mathematics 2052 Department of Visual Communications Studies 2053 MSSE Teacher Education Program 2054 2055 Group Two 2056 Department of Business Studies 2057 Department of Counseling & Academic Advising Services 2058 Department of Cultural & Creative Studies 2059 Department of Engineering Studies 2060 Department of Information and Computing Studies 2061 Department of Liberal Studies 2062 Unaffiliated 2063 2064 The associate vice president for academic affairs will solicit nominations of tenured faculty from each 2065 group and will compile a list of nominees who are willing to serve. Individuals may self-nominate. 2066 2067 2068 43 2069 2070 2071 E. Voting 2072 2073 The list of nominees from each group will be submitted to the tenure-track and tenured faculty of that 2074 group, and a vote by ballot will be conducted. The faculty will vote for a maximum number of 2075 individuals as determined by the number of vacancies to be filled (i.e., “Vote for two,” etc.). 2076 2077 F. Election 2078 2079 If the ballot produces a sufficient number of tenure committee representatives, the alternate(s) from 2080 that group will be determined to be the individual(s) receiving the next highest vote total(s). An 2081 alternate will replace an elected representative should one of the elected representatives from a group 2082 be unable to serve because of circumstances beyond his/her control. 2083 2084 G. Exceptions to Two-Year Terms 2085 2086 As noted above, tenure committee members will generally be elected to two-year terms, and elections 2087 will be staggered to ensure compliance with the RIT policy requiring that at least one committee 2088 member will have been on the college tenure committee during the preceding year. In order to maintain 2089 a staggered election schedule, the exceptions to the two-year election rule will occur in “off election” 2090 years when it is necessary to hold an election to accommodate the need for a larger number of tenure 2091 committees than had been used in the preceding year. In such cases, all committee members expecting 2092 to serve the second year of a two-year term will do so, but sufficient additional representation will be 2093 elected for a one-year term only. 2094 2095 Conversely, in years when the college has more tenure committee members expecting to continue 2096 serving the second year of a two-year term than will be needed, due to a reduction in the number of 2097 committees required, the members chosen to continue their terms will be determined by the number of 2098 votes received by each individual during the original election. Therefore, records of the election 2099 process, complete with the number of votes received by each individual, must be kept on file in the 2100 office of the associate vice president for academic affairs. 2101 2102 J. Department heads serving on tenure committees 2103 2104 Department heads with faculty rank are eligible to vote for representatives and serve on tenure 2105 committees. However, a department head may not be a member of a tenure committee, which is 2106 reviewing a candidate from his/her department. In such circumstances, the department head will be 2107 replaced by an elected alternate. 2108 2109 K. Ensuring Uniformity 2110 2111 The president/dean of NTID will bring together all tenure committees in a given year to review process 2112 and procedures in order to ensure uniformity. 2113

44 2114 APPENDIX F 2115 INTERPRETING SIGN LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY INTERVIEW RATING SCALE19 2116 2117 It is the position of this Communication Task Force that faculty peers and administrators need only address 2118 two questions in developing their judgments regarding an individual’s sign language skills: 2119 2120 1. Has an individual fully met the Institute expectations? 2121 2. If not, has the individual made acceptable progress toward the goal? It may be deemed 2122 appropriate in light of other qualifications and given extenuating circumstances to accept other 2123 than the stated level at the time of the evaluation with the expectation that the individual will 2124 achieve that level of sign language in the reasonably near future. 2125 It is to be judged whether an individual’s professional development effort up to the time of the 2126 review documents a sustained and good-faith effort, as well as whether an individual’s SLPI 2127 rating suggests he/she will meet the Institute's expectations. 2128 2129 The issue of sufficient documentation will probably always remain primarily a judgment call (e.g., has there 2130 been sustained participation and effort within a defined professional development plan, or spotty participation 2131 over time, or “last-minute” rush to attempt to meet expectations, etc.). Nevertheless, these judgments should be 2132 guided by the intent and spirit of the recommendations. 2133 2134 If an individual does not attain the expected rating on the SLPI by the time of review for tenure, and if it is 2135 determined by those conducting the review that it is appropriate to assess progress rather than current level of 2136 achievement, the question arises, “What rating is considered to be close enough to indicate that, with 2137 additional sustained effort, he/she would reasonably be able to successfully attain the expected rating in the 2138 near future?” 2139 2140 We make the following recommendations for interpreting achievement of SLPI ratings: 2141 SLPI RATING SCALE – Tenure Review and Promotion to Associate Professor Superior Plus Superior Advanced Plus Advanced Meets Institute expectations. Intermediate Plus Acceptable if candidate shows good progress toward Advanced rating; must be accompanied by strong evidence of a variety of ongoing efforts to improve performance. Intermediate Generally not acceptable. (See pp. 29-30) Survival Plus Not acceptable regardless of job responsibilities. Survival Novice Plus Novice

33 19 Reference to the 1991 Communication Task Force Report, pp. 29 and 30. 45 2142 APPENDIX G 2143 RIT INSTITUTE POLICY ON SCHOLARSHIP – E4.0.4, Section b 2144 2145 b. Scholarship 2146 2147 While teaching is the foremost activity of the RIT faculty, faculty are expected to engage in significant 2148 scholarship as measured by external disciplinary and professional standards as acknowledged by department 2149 and program practices of faculty review. 2150 2151 (1) “Scholarship” at RIT will encompass four elements:* 2152 2153 Scholarship of discovery: When faculty use their professional expertise to discover knowledge, invent, or 2154 create original material. Using this definition, basic research as well as, for example, the creation of 2155 innovative computer software, plays or artwork would be considered the scholarship of discovery. 2156 2157 Scholarship of teaching/pedagogy: When faculty engage in the scholarship of teaching practice through peer- 2158 reviewed activities to improve pedagogy. Using this definition, a faculty member who studies and investigates 2159 student learning to develop strategies that improve learning has engaged in the scholarship of teaching. 2160 2161 Scholarship of integration: When faculty use their professional expertise to connect, integrate, and synthesize 2162 knowledge. Using this definition, faculty members who take research findings or technological innovations 2163 and apply them to other situations would be engaging in the scholarship of integration. 2164 2165 Scholarship of application: When faculty use their professional expertise to engage in applied research, 2166 consultation, technical assistance, policy analysis, program evaluation or similar activities to solve problems. 2167 This definition recognizes that new intellectual understandings arise out of the act of application. 2168 2169 (2) The top priorities for scholarship at RIT are to enhance the education of our students and our institutional 2170 reputation. Faculty engaged in either sponsored or unsponsored scholarship in any of the four areas defined 2171 above are expected to disseminate the knowledge acquired in these endeavors through normal scholarly 2172 means. 2173 2174 (3) All four aspects of scholarship are important for RIT, and must be recognized, valued, supported, and 2175 rewarded in the tenure, promotion, and merit salary increment processes in each unit. 2176 2177 (4) All tenured and tenure-track RIT faculty must be actively participating in the scholarship of their 2178 disciplines. There will be considerable variation, however, in the amounts of scholarship in which different 2179 faculty engage within the same departments and colleges, as well as throughout the Institute. Along with 2180 institutional service and student advising, proportions of professional time devoted to teaching and 2181 scholarship will be determined by individual faculty Plans of Work. 2182 2183 (5) RIT will continue to fund faculty professional development for the benefit of RIT, including discretionary 2184 seed funds to assist in the initiation of faculty research programs. Ongoing faculty and graduate student 2185 research programs, however, must be supported through external funding**. 2186 2187 (6) While RIT will accept externally-funded proprietary and classified projects, knowledge acquired through 2188 such projects must be available within a reasonable timeframe for wider dissemination through publications, 2189 classroom teaching, or application to other projects. 2190 2191 *These definitions of “Scholarship” have been partially paraphrased and modified from definitions used by 2192 the American Association for Higher Education. 2193 2194 ** With regard to this requirement, as a federally-funded college of RIT, some of NTID’s ongoing research 2195 efforts are funded from the federal appropriation in accordance with the mission of the college. Faculty who 2196 work on these research projects may receive funding from the NTID research budget. 2197 46 2198 APPENDIX H 2199 NTID DEFINITION OF CREATIVE WORK 2200 2201 The candidate should define his/her role in the creation of the work in terms of whether it is a solo or 2202 collaborative project, and whether it was commissioned, invited, or submitted. International and national 2203 exposure or circulation is considered more significant than regional, and regional is more highly regarded than 2204 local. Evaluation of an artistic achievement will include reviews by scholars in the field and other outside 2205 evaluators solicited by the committee. Evidence includes but is not limited to the following: 2206 2207 1. A candidate’s portfolio which reveals significant and developing achievement in the field/s of 2208 specialization. Evidence of creative work (artistic works, films, electronic media productions, literary or 2209 dramatic works, designs, invitations, or exhibitions) may be submitted in any of the following ways: 2210 critical reviews, printed color images, slides, videotapes, DVD and CD, or any other current technology. 2211 2212 2. Participation in exhibits may be solo or in group format. Solo participation may be invited or curated. 2213 Group participation may be invited or curated, juried or open, as follows: 2214 2215 • An invited exhibition, solo or as a member of a group, will typically occur as a result of a personal 2216 invitation from a nationally or regionally recognized gallery or museum. 2217 2218 • A curated exhibition, solo or as a member of a group, is an exhibition of the candidate’s work, which 2219 is reviewed by an individual curator or exhibition committee for exhibition in a gallery or museum, a 2220 university exhibition space or a non-profit artist’s space. Typically, the exhibition curator establishes a 2221 theme and seeks artists whose work is appropriate to the theme. Invitations to submit work for review 2222 may come from advertisements, personal contacts with artists, or other curators. Artists typically 2223 submit a set of slides, an artist’s statement, and resume. 2224 2225 • A juried show is an exhibition where the selection process includes the artist’s submission of 2226 slides/CD that match a particular theme or medium and payment of a submission fee. The exhibition 2227 venue may hire an outside curator to jury the work. Jurors vary by experience and reputation. An 2228 artist’s work achieves greater recognition if the juror is well known and represents a recognized 2229 institution or gallery and if the artist wins a prize and/or the exhibit provides a catalogue. 2230 2231 • An open show is one in which there are no requirements set for acceptance other than one’s 2232 membership in a group. All work is accepted since no review process exists. 2233 2234 3. Commissions/Freelance activities 2235 2236 4. Gallery affiliations 2237 2238 5. Grants 2239 2240 6. Honors & awards 2241 2242 2243 2244 2245 2246 2247 2248 2249 2250 2251 2252 47 2253 2254 2255 APPENDIX J 2256 RIT INSTITUTE POLICY ON SERVICE – E4.0.4, section c 2257 2258 2259 c. Service 2260 2261 While teaching and scholarship are important faculty responsibilities, services performed by faculty members 2262 are an indispensable part of the Institute’s daily life. Faculty members at all ranks are expected to provide 2263 some forms of service to the Institute, the college, the department and their professional community. They are 2264 often encouraged to provide service at different levels and areas of the Institute. 2265 2266 Service includes working with students and colleagues outside the classroom, such as might be found in 2267 college and Institute committee work, student advising and student activities as well as linking the 2268 professional skills of members of the faculty to the world beyond the campus. 2269 2270 RIT values all forms of faculty service. Typical faculty service activities include but are not limited to the 2271 following: committee work at the departmental, college, or Institute level; improving RIT’s program quality, 2272 reputation and operational efficiency; advising a student group; development of new courses and curriculum; 2273 service to the faculty member’s professional societies, such as reviewing articles, organizing professional 2274 conferences, or serving a professional organization. 2275 2276 2277 2278 2279 2280 2281 2282 2283 2284 2285 2286 2287 2288 2289 2290 2291 2292 2293 2294 2295 2296 2297 2298 2299 2300 2301 2302 2303 2304 2305 2306 2307 2308 48 2309 2310 2311 APPENDIX K 2312 EXTRACTS FROM PROVOST’S 2012 GUIDANCE 2313 For tenured and tenure track faculty evaluation letters: Information for 2314 department chairs, peer committees, and deans regarding 3rd year review, 2315 tenure review, and promotion to full professor. 2316 2317 Summer 2012 Jeremy Haefner 2318 Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs 2319 2320 Overview: Effective evaluation letters in the faculty review process is critically important to insuring RIT has 2321 a system of faculty evaluation that supports sound decision‐ making with fair and consistent practices. 2322 Towards this objective, the following guidance is provided for effective evaluation letters. While this 2323 guidance is directed at department chairs, committees, and deans, the same guidance applies to academic unit 2324 colleagues who, according to policy, also provide evaluative input in the process. 2325 ………… 2326 2327 Evidence refers to the documentation and facts that support the assessment or rating. For example, multiple 2328 forms of evidence are required for an adequate assessment of teaching effectiveness—student ratings of 2329 teaching, peer-evaluation of teaching, curriculum development, etc. In particular, letters must reference the evidence 2330 used to formulate the judgment or assessment. 2331 2332 1. There must be multiple forms of evidence to support teaching effectiveness. 2333 While student ratings of teaching are one form of evidence that can be used to assess teaching, other 2334 forms are needed to provide the complete and holistic assessment of teaching effectiveness. Effective 2335 forms of evidence to support teaching assessment include: 2336 a. Student ratings of teaching; 2337 b. Collegial peer review of teaching pedagogy; 2338 c. Collegial peer review of the candidate’s courseware, e.g.: 2339 i. Syllabi and assignments 2340 ii Text and other materials 2341 iii, Graded work 2342 iv. Exams 2343 d. Collegial peer outcomes assessment, e.g., student preparedness for and success 2344 in 2345 subsequent courses; 2346 e. Assessment results that demonstrate student learning of course 2347 outcomes; 2348 f.Teaching awards and other recognitions, either internal or external; 2349 g. Alumni evaluations/feedback; 2350 h. Development of curriculum and/or instructional materials; 2351 j. Innovations in teaching; 2352 k. Quality and effectiveness of mentoring graduate students on projects, MS 2353 theses and 2354 PhD theses; 2355 l.Student advising assessment; 2356 m. Student performance on standard professional examination; 2357 n. Student project supervision; 49 2358 o. Demonstrated effectiveness in teaching courses that are understood to be the 2359 most 2360 challenging from an instructional viewpoint; 2361 p. Enrollment in elective courses—i.e., a willingness to teach undesirable 2362 courses; and 2363 q. Active interest in and concern for student welfare. 2364 2365 2. Evidence to support scholarship assessment can have many forms just as the scholarship itself can 2366 have many forms. Evaluating scholarship contributions should address the significance, impact and 2367 attention of the scholar’s work to the university’s mission. Note that the amount of scholarship is a 2368 function of workload and many colleges have established specific expectations through the plan of 2369 work. Regardless of amount, the assessment of scholarship quality is an expectation in all letters. 2370 Examples of evidence that can be referenced for the assessment of scholarship include: 2371 a. External peer evaluations of published or exhibited scholarship/creative work, 2372 generally captured from external letters; 2373 b. External funding in support of scholarship, research, and creative work; 2374 c. Invention disclosures, patents or licensing agreements that demonstrate the technology 2375 transfer of ideas; 2376 d. Professional reputation or standing of presses (publications), journals, shows, 2377 exhibits, conferences, etc., through which the scholarship has been disseminated; 2378 e. Citations by other professionals of the candidate’s disseminated scholarship 2379 f. Quantity of disseminated, peer‐ reviewed, and documented scholarship; 2380 g. Development of research laboratories; 2381 h. Invited seminars, presentations, exhibits, or other displays of work; and 2382 i. Presentation of conference papers at national and international professional 2383 meetings. 2384 2385 3. Contributions in the area of service work can vary according to the needs of the college or 2386 university, the interest of the faculty member, the discipline, or professional society. The evaluator 2387 typically considers all these factors, as well as the quality and impact of the work, in assessing the 2388 service component of the faculty member.