Post Tenure Review/Retention/Tenure, Promotion
TASK FORCE REPORT
POST TENURE REVIEW/RETENTION/TENURE, PROMOTION
Presented by Committee members:
Dr. Pamela Ansburg
Dr. Debora Gilliard
Dr. Madison Holloway
Dr. David Ruch
Dr. Herbert W. Stoughton
Dr. John Schmidt: Chair
Dr. Jodi Wetzel
To: Dr. Ray Kieft; Interim President: MSCD
RECOMMENDATIONS: GENERAL
All Faculty hired at MSCD prior to the current June, 2003 HANDBOOK FOR PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL be “grandfathered” the pre existing terms and conditions for promotion to the rank of Full Professor.
No faculty should need to submit more than one dossier/annual review document per academic year for any reason. For example, faculty who are in a post tenure review cycle may use the post tenure dossier for annual evaluation purposes. Faculty who are in the tenure loop need not submit a separate annual evaluation dossier. Faculty who are applying for the rank of Full Professor, need not submit a separate dossier for annual evaluation. The only faculty who submit an annual review document for evaluation are faculty NOT applying for Post Tenure Review, Promotion, Retention, or Tenure.
Based upon the above recommendation, the review cycle for ALL dossiers, and annual evaluation, should be re-set to the same cycle in the later part of the Spring Semester.
New Faculty, who were tenured at a previous four year institution, and not granted tenure upon initial MSCD hire, may apply for tenure at the close of the first year of probation. If successful, the candidate would begin yr. 2 as a tenured faculty. If unsuccessful, the candidate would enter into year 2 of the 6 yr. process with an opportunity to apply for early tenure in years 3, 4, or 5.
New Faculty, who had at least 3 years of prior full time tenure track teaching experience, may elect to start at year 3 in our current 6 yr. tenure process.
Faculty, Assistant Professors, who are approved for tenure in year 6, should be promoted to the rank of Associate Professor at the same time as they are tenured. A second or duplicate dossier would not be necessary and each candidate would be considered for both promotion and tenure concurrently. Faculty who are not “promotable” at the end of the 6 year tenure cycle, should not be retained
P2
The language in the HANDBOOK FOR PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL on page 44 Section D item 4: “abstentions will be considered as votes against” and any other section of the HANDBOOK with the same language should be changed to read: Four types of votes will be recorded at any level of review: yes, no, absent, or abstain. Abstentions will be considered as a vote reflecting the position of a committee member who was not prepared.
Dossiers submitted for, Promotion, Tenure, Retention, and Post Tenure Review would stop at the SCHOOL level. The reviewing entities would be: Department Committee, Chair, School Committee, and Dean. The College Committee, (staffed by the Faculty Senate) would only be used in cases where the Dossier is NOT supported by one or more committees, the Chair, or the Dean. In such cases, the Faculty Senate Committee would review the dossier and provide a recommendation to the Vice President for Academic Affairs.
The office of Academic Affairs should continue to provide Guidelines and training for Dossier Preparation. The guideline booklets should be modified as necessary per recommendations in other sections of this document.
POST TENURE REVIEW DOSSIER RECOMMENDATIONS
The following are recommendations for preparing and submitting a dossier for Post Tenure Review. Upon careful review of the current HANDBOOK FOR PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL, it may not be possible to implement these changes for this academic year and meet the current HANDBOOK REQUIREMENTS.
Cover Sheet: Required
Pagination: Required
Provision for letters of support/non support from each committee, Chair and Dean: Required
P3
Vita/Resume: Required. Use existing format from items A-E. (in current guideline booklet) Item F (Scholarship, creative activities) should be presented in a manner consistent with the standards or expectations for the discipline involved. Where the faculty has determined that no such expectations or standards exist, the current suggest format would be used. Remaining sections, G and H of the Vita/Resume would follow the existing format. Each faculty will have the option of providing a six year historical Vita/Resume for the purposes of Post Tenure Review only.
Faculty would generate and include a - 2 column table: Required. Left side; 5 year goals: Right side; accomplishments.
Provide copies of all peer evaluations: Required
Use existing ANNUAL EVALUATION RATING SUMMARY TABLE, and/or modified table for department chairs: Required (found in current dossier preparation booklet)
Provide copies of only the student evaluation summary sheets for all courses taught: Required
No other supportive documentation needs to be included with the dossier. Faculty MUST be responsible to archive all pertinent documentation and make any and all documentation available to reviewers upon request.
RETENTION, TENURE, PROMOTION DOSSIER RECOMMENDATIONS
For the purpose of retention and tenure, the faculty would undergo a “full dossier” review in years 4 and 6 ONLY. Years 2,3, and 5 would require only a four page maximum narrative summary of activities in areas of Teaching, Advising, Professional Development and Service. The narrative summary material would be reviewed by the Department Chair and Dean only.
Vita/Resume would have same format criteria as the Post Tenure Dossier: Required (Vita/Resume would contain a complete professional history of all activities)
P4
Appropriate cover sheet and signature sheets to be included: Required
Table of contents required; document to be paginated: Required
NO CHECKLIST page.
Provide comment sheets for reviewers: Required
Include all prior agreements, if applicable: Required
Include a rating summary table of annual evaluations and the chairs narrative summary sheet: Required (Deans narrative summary sheet for Chairs)
Department evaluation guidelines would NOT be required to be included in the dossier.
Teaching Executive summary; 2 page maximum to include comments regarding student assessment and curriculum development: Required
Advising executive summary; 1page limit: Required
Include student evaluation summary pages only: Required
Peer evaluation document to be submitted in an “as is “ format: Required. Summary page for peer evaluations: optional.
Professional Development executive summary; 1 page limit.
3 year Professional Development plan to be formatted in a 2 column style: Required. Left side column, contains the plan: Right side column, contains the plan accomplishments.
Service executive summary; 1page maximum: Required
NO LETTERS OF RECOMMENDATION TO BE INCLUDED
A second supplemental dossier would NOT be required or submitted. Supplemental documentation would be made available upon request at any level. The faculty would be expected to keep all relevant documentation for the appropriate period of time necessary.