Evaluation of Faculty
The categories for faculty evaluation are: Teaching, Scholarship, Service to Iliff, Service to the Profession, and Service to Church and/or Community. In determining eligibility for retention, promotion or tenure, and merit remuneration, the Faculty Personnel Committee, the Dean, and others engaged in faculty evaluation will use the five categories listed above. Teaching and scholarship will normally be treated equally, but each will be given greater weight than any of the other three criteria. Standards of professional conduct and ethics are a part of all review processes for faculty development and performance. These standards are outlined in Section VII of this Faculty Handbook. Under special circumstances an alternative weighting of categories may be negotiated by the Dean and Faculty Personnel Committee for a faculty member -- for example, if a faculty member were asked to take on a special project by the School or by a church or denominational leadership body, or by his/her scholarly or professional guild.
By creating clear procedures, criteria, and evidence for evaluation, Iliff strives to create evaluation procedures that treat all members of the faculty equitably. Because an element of subjective judgment exists in evaluating faculty work, we recognize existing research that demonstrates that structural systems of bias such as racism and sexism may influence the judgment of administrators, faculty peers, student, and external evaluators of faculty work. Where such bias unfairly impacts the outcomes of faculty evaluation, faculty members are encouraged to work with the grievance procedures to rectify the situation without fear of retaliation.
Evaluation of the President
The President is a member of the Faculty whose evaluation is carried out by the Board of Trustees following the criteria set forth in the Bylaws of the Iliff School of Theology with appropriate input from the Faculty and from other employees and any other constituent groups of the School as deemed relevant by the Trustees.
Evaluation of the Dean by the President
The President is charged with the responsibility of developing a regular review of the Dean of the Faculty and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs, which recognizes the special duties and responsibilities of that office. The President shall seek periodic input from the Faculty in this review and from other employees who report to the Dean and any other constituent groups of the School as deemed relevant by the President.
Annual Evaluation of Faculty by the Dean
The Dean will evaluate each faculty member once a year using the criteria listed above. The Dean provides the faculty member a written evaluation, a copy of which is forwarded to the faculty member’s personnel file in the Office of the President. Each faculty member with tenure will normally be reviewed every fourth or fifth year by the Faculty Personnel Committee.
Evaluation of the Librarian, the Dean of the Chapel and Spiritual Formation, and the Director of Professional Formation.
These specialized Faculty positions have unique responsibilities and criteria for evaluation appropriate to their roles. Because of the heavy administrative nature of these positions and their responsibility to both internal and external Iliff constituencies, normally the weighting will put primary emphasis on Administration as an evaluative category, and other Service to Iliff, Service to the Church and Community, and Service to the Profession. Lesser weight will be given to Teaching and Scholarship.
A more detailed description of evaluative criteria appropriate to the position and the specific distribution of the annual merit points are negotiated with the Dean of the Faculty and approved by the President and the Faculty Personnel Committee, and recorded in writing as part of both the probationary and renewal contracts. As with all full-time faculty the faculty members in these roles will provide to the Dean of the Faculty an annual self-evaluation report that addresses the full range of these responsibilities. They are eligible for the same range of merit increases as other faculty based on the criteria.
Renewal of contract requires a review of effectiveness within the position and of institutional needs. To be considered for renewal, persons in these positions will submit to the Dean and Faculty Personnel Committee a cumulative self-evaluation addressing the five areas of faculty evaluation and the responsibilities for their position laid out in their contract. The Dean and the Faculty Personnel Committee may gather feedback from other faculty, students involved in these programs, or as appropriate from external constituencies served by the program. With the renewal of the contract the faculty member receives feedback from the review process and this is an appropriate opportunity to review salary equity.
The renewal of the first non-probationary contract, requires the same process and data for review as the annual evaluation supplemented by external evaluations from within the faculty member’s field to be requested by the Dean and Faculty Personnel Committee. Further renewals require at least a cumulative self-evaluation since the last renewal and review by the Dean and the Faculty Personnel Committee, but on recommendation of the Dean may happen in a more streamlined manner.
Evaluation of the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Dean of the Faculty
The Dean of the Faculty and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs has unique responsibilities and is evaluated in relationship to those responsibilities. The greatest weight in evaluation is given to the Administration of the academic programs of the School, including faculty development, and support of the School’s wider programs. Lesser weight will be given to Service to the Church and Community, Service to the Profession, Service to Iliff, Teaching, and Scholarship. The President may establish more detailed expressions of these evaluation criteria in consultation with the Dean and the Faculty Personnel Committee.
The President is responsible for the evaluation of the Dean, and in preparing for that evaluation consults with the Faculty Personnel Committee. The President and/or the Faculty Personnel Committee may also seek feedback from others as they judge appropriate. The President may dismiss a Dean for cause following consultation with the Faculty Personnel Committee. Where the Dean holds tenure at the Iliff School of Theology, the Dean then returns to the Faculty.
Where a Dean does not hold tenure, terms of severance on dismissal must be addressed in the contract letter.
Review of Ranked Probationary Faculty
Each tenure-track faculty member will be reviewed for reappointment annually by the Dean in consultation with the Faculty Personnel Committee, beginning in the faculty member's second year of employment at the School.
Following consultation with the Faculty Personnel Committee, the Dean will make a recommendation for reappointment or non-reappointment to the President for approval. The Dean’s report includes the substance of the consultation with the Faculty Personnel Committee.
Evaluation Criteria for Faculty
Teaching Effectiveness
- Criteria for evaluating Teaching Effectiveness include, but are not limited, to the following:
- command of one's discipline
- ability to relate one's subject to other areas of knowledge
- ability to utilize effective teaching methods and strategies
- skill in communicating with students
- ability to plan and execute a substantive, well-organized course including appropriate teaching technologies
- ability to stimulate and broaden student interest in the subject matter
- advising students on academic and professional aspects of their work
- mentoring ability
- Demonstration of Teaching Effectiveness includes, but is not limited, to the following evidence:
- self-evaluation
- peer or administrative evaluations of teaching
- student evaluations
- general course enrollment and other teaching load factors
- peer review of course syllabi
Students, because of their regular presence in faculty classrooms, have a unique perspective on teaching effectiveness that should be considered in evaluation of teaching. However, because student evaluations of teaching have been demonstrated by research to reflect bias with regards to women faculty and faculty of color, these evaluations shall not be used as the sole or deciding measure of teaching effectiveness, and must be balanced by other means of documentation in determining merit raises, promotions, and tenure.
- Depending on the degree programs in which a faculty member teaches, this list may also include one or more of the following:
- preparing and evaluating comprehensive examinations
- serving as a doctoral mentor or advisor
- directing and serving on dissertation committees
- serving as first reader on a master’s thesis
Scholarship
Scholarship is a contribution to knowledge that is reflected in original research, is informed by and informs theory, and is expressed in a variety of academic and professional venues depending on the audience of the particular field and its evaluative standards and instruments. Because what is considered to be a significant contribution to a field varies from discipline to discipline, research and publications should be peer-evaluated in terms of their quality.
- The following list is suggestive but not exhaustive of the criteria for evaluating Scholarship:
- Scholarly productivity demonstrated by publications
- Theoretically-grounded or research-based publications related to the ministry of the church
- Electronic media products that are not self-published: e.g. television broadcasts, video tapes, e-books
- Articles in on-line journals
- Presentations at academic and professional meetings
- Demonstration of excellence in Scholarship should include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following types of evidence:
- Documented self-report of activities
- Evaluation or statements by professional peers
- Juried publications
- Publications by journals or book publishers that are recognized to have rigorous editorial standards
- Evaluation by producers/critics of electronic media products
- Receipt of grants, prizes, or commendations
Service to Iliff
All full-time faculty members are expected to participate in the operational concerns of the School.
- Criteria for evaluating Service to the Iliff School of Theology may include, but are not limited, to the following:
- Effective service and participation on all assigned committees
- Providing effective leadership, such as serving as committee chair or director of an academic program
- Participation in the decision-making and curriculum development processes of the core curricular areas
- Acting as representative of the School to the larger regional, national, or international community
- Other special projects of academic and institutional import
- Supervising personnel
- Hosting judicatory and other visitors
- Demonstration of service activities includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the following types of evidence:
- Self-report of activities
- Ratings by the Dean, Faculty Personnel Committee, and/or peer ratings
- Committee or committee chairperson ratings, or ratings by the supervisor of an activity (e.g., a report from the director of admissions or the director of development).
Service to the Profession
All faculty members have an obligation to maintain a high level of professional competence and to contribute to developments in their fields. Faculty members are encouraged to support and be active in appropriate professional organizations.
- Criteria for evaluating activities in Service to the Profession include, but are not necessarily limited, to the following:
- Participation in professional organizations
- Service in an appointed or elected capacity, to local, regional, national, and/or international professional organizations
- Service in the individual's professional area as a consultant or resource person
- Editorship or service on the editorial boards of professional journals and publication houses
- Book reviews published in professional journals.
- Participating in review and evaluation processes for other professionals in one’s field
- Demonstration of professional activities should include, but is not necessarily limited to, the following types of evidence:
- Documented self-report of activities
- Evaluation by the Dean or by the Faculty Personnel Committee
- Letters of support from disciplinary colleagues, professional association officers, and/or consultant reports
- Honors and awards
Service to the Church and/or Community
Faculty provide important role modeling and thus are expected to make their commitments and expertise available to the Church and Community beyond the School.
- Criteria for evaluating Service to the Church and/or Community may include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:
- Chairing or serving on local and national church or community boards or agencies
- Contributing to the life of a congregation beyond attendance, e.g., preaching or serving on a committee
- Providing instruction for clergy and laity outside the School’s curriculum
- Being a resource person for community programs
- Providing consultation and pastoral services for local churches, clergy, and laypersons
- Engaging in community action and service
- Writing a blog to engage a broad public audience
- Drawing up letters of concern on behalf of the faculty about urgent matters in society that need a theological perspective
- Demonstration of Service to the Church and/or Community should include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following types of evidence:
- Self-report
- Evaluations by the Dean and/or the Faculty Personnel Committee
- Peer evaluations
- Evaluations by clergy, church leaders, and/or lay persons
- Evaluations by community leaders and/or associates
VIII.E.6. Administrative Appointment – Additional Criteria
Where faculty members carry an additional administrative appointment, evaluation of these additional administrative duties will include evaluation of program development, personnel management, financial management, and other administrative duties appropriate to an individual’s position or in their respective contract for the administrative appointment. Demonstration of meeting these criteria may include self-report in annual evaluation with documented data relevant to the work of the position, evaluations by the Dean and/or the Faculty Personnel Committee, and evaluations by peers or other administrative staff who work closely with the position.
Annual Review of Ranked Faculty
- The Dean shall set a deadline, normally in October, by which all faculty members will turn in an updated CV and his/her Annual Self-Evaluation Report based on the criteria listed above.
Faculty members are encouraged to consult with their mentor(s) and/or with the Dean regarding best practices for writing a self-evaluation report. The period for which the faculty member is being evaluated shall cover the preceding academic year and summer (September 1 – August 31). Normally the written Self-Evaluation Report includes documentation of each of the five areas of faculty evaluation. - After reviewing the submitted materials, the Dean sets an appointment to meet with the faculty member and to discuss the faculty member’s performance in each of the evaluative areas.
- After the meeting, the Dean provides a written evaluation to the faculty member, a copy of which is forwarded to the personnel file in the Office of the President. This evaluation determines the merit pay increase for that year.
- Full-time faculty members in their first year at the Iliff School of Theology shall meet in the spring of that year with the Dean for an evaluative conversation. This meeting will not result in a formal evaluative letter from the Dean. Merit pay increase for the first year of a faculty member’s employment at the School shall be based on the average merit pay increase received by the Faculty as a whole.
Periodic Review of Tenured Faculty
The Dean, in conjunction with the Faculty Personnel Committee, will determine a schedule for the periodic review of tenured faculty. In the periodic review of tenured faculty, the Faculty Personnel Committee and the Dean shall review the following: a cumulative self-report covering
the period since the last review, publications, past Faculty Personnel Committee evaluations, internal evaluations from colleagues familiar with the faculty member’s work, and external reviews of the faculty member’s scholarship.
Annual Review of Probationary Faculty
Probationary faculty shall be reviewed annually beginning in the second year of employment at the School by the Dean in conjunction with the Faculty Personnel Committee’s separate review of each probationary faculty member.
- The Dean initiates the process of annual evaluation by notifying all probationary faculty of the deadline for submitting their C.V. and Annual Self-Evaluation Report for review. Normally materials shall be due in October. The Dean will submit a copy of these materials to the Faculty Personnel Committee for its annual review of each probationary faculty member.
- The probationary faculty member shall meet with the Faculty Personnel Committee to discuss her/his materials and how these materials indicate progress toward tenure and promotion. Part of the agenda of this conversation will be to identify, clarify, and document a set of goals for publishing appropriate to the audience of the particular field and its evaluative standards and instruments. Where appropriate, internal or external persons in the faculty member’s field may be consulted to help establish these goals.
- The Dean and the Faculty Personnel Committee, in consultation with the faculty member, will establish a running “count” of publications, which later Faculty Personnel Committees shall heed except in extraordinary circumstances.
- The Faculty Personnel Committee shall produce a report assessing the probationary faculty member’s performance in light of the five categories of evaluation (which may include recommendations about reappointment). The chair of the committee sends the report to the faculty member with a copy to the Dean.
- The Dean shall discuss the Faculty Personnel Committee’s report with the probationary faculty member, and its implications for receipt of merit pay increases, reappointment, and progress toward tenure and promotion.
Data for Review of Probationary Faculty
The following types of evidence and documents will be reviewed by the Faculty Personnel Committee and the Dean in their evaluation of probationary faculty members: (1) current curriculum vitae; (2) course evaluations; (3) publications; (4) one to two written evaluations from
selected Iliff faculty members familiar with the non-tenured individual's work; (5) the probationary faculty member’s self-evaluation report as submitted to the Dean.
Mid-Tenure Review by the Faculty Personnel Committee
The mid-tenure review normally comes after three full years at the rank of assistant professor. The purpose of this summative review is to assess the faculty member’s progress toward tenure and outline steps for the faculty member’s remaining time before the tenure review. If the Dean and Faculty Personnel Committee conclude there is not sufficient progress to warrant hope for tenure, the Dean will communicate this to the faculty member. The Dean’s communication to the faculty member will also apprise the faculty member of his/her continued employment status at the School.
Data for Mid-Tenure Review
The mid-tenure review is based upon the materials for annual review evaluations and the following items and documentation:
- An evaluative self-report summarizing the faculty member’s progress towards tenure, including their self-understanding of their emerging professional identity as a teacher and scholar; the emerging development of their service to Iliff, the academy, the church and/or the community; and their agenda for future scholarship and teaching.
- Course enrollment numbers and course evaluations
- Report from the director of professional formation or the director of the Joint Ph.D. program, as appropriate with regards to the individual’s faculty member’s work in these areas of the School’s programs
- All of their published work and work accepted for publication
- Written evaluations from at least two Iliff faculty members familiar with the individual's work selected by the Dean, in consultation with the Faculty Personnel Committee
- Letters of evaluation from two outside referees, selected by the Dean in consultation with the Faculty Personnel Committee from a list of six scholars in the candidate's field -- three scholars selected by the candidate and three scholars selected by the Faculty Personnel Committee
- Letters of evaluation from students and other individuals in the School community, as deemed appropriate by the Faculty Personnel Committee in consultation with the Dean
- Peer evaluation of the faculty member’s teaching as deemed appropriate by the Faculty Personnel Committee and the Dean
- Previous Faculty Personnel Committee evaluations of the individual’s probationary faculty status
Post Mid-Tenure Review
If the mid-tenure review has gone successfully, the Dean will meet with the faculty member to identify what kinds of faculty development and support the person most needs in order to work her/his way successfully through tenure. Such support will usually include at least the following: a research leave (if one has not already been taken), regular conversation with her/his mentors, help from mentors and/or the Dean in suggesting or finding venues for publication of the faculty member’s work, and if faculty development funds are available, help in attending additional conferences or key workshops germane to the faculty member’s discipline or to the development of her/his professional identity.
Tenure
The Meaning of Tenure
Institutions of higher education are conducted for the common good, which depends upon the free search for truth and its free exposition by dedicated teachers and scholars. Tenure is a means to that end, protecting faculty members against pressures from inside or outside the academic community that endanger academic freedom.
- The probationary period, which precedes the granting of tenure, gives individuals time to demonstrate their ability and gives colleagues time to observe and evaluate them on the basis of their performance. During this period, a faculty member has the same academic freedom as a tenured faculty member, and non- reappointment cannot be based on reasons that violate his/her academic freedom. Termination, dismissal, or suspension of a probationary faculty member can occur only in accordance with the provisions of Section X. of this Faculty Handbook. Faculty members holding probationary appointments are evaluated for reappointment or for non-reappointment on a yearly basis by the Dean, and by the Faculty Personnel Committee beginning in her/his second year of employment at the School.
- Conferral of tenure means that a faculty member with the rank of associate professor or higher is, after the probationary period, explicitly guaranteed by the Board of Trustees the continuance of a full-time appointment until retirement or resignation unless there is proof of adequate cause, prolonged mental or physical illness, financial exigency or changes in the educational programs of the School.
Application for Tenure
-
- Consideration for advancement to tenure and/or for promotion to the rank of associate professor normally occurs simultaneously during the sixth year of a faculty member's service at the Iliff School of Theology at the assistant professor level. Service at another institution, or institutions, may be contractually credited by the School, upon review by the Faculty Personnel Committee, and thereby reduce the number of probationary years. Granting of tenure and granting of promotion to the rank of associate professor becomes effective at the beginning of the academic year following the review for tenure or promotion.
- The criteria and documentation for tenure and promotion are detailed below in the next section. The candidate’s application must demonstrate his or her ability to make an original contribution to the field as appropriate to the particular audiences of that field.
Data for Tenure Review
The Faculty Personnel Committee’s report and recommendation will be based on a dossier that includes the following data:
- Current curriculum vitae.
- An evaluative self-report summarizing the faculty member’s progress towards tenure, including their self-understanding of their emerging professional identity as a teacher and scholar; the development of their service to Iliff, the academy, the church and/or the community; and their agenda for future scholarship and teaching.
- All published work and work accepted for publication.
- Copies of prior annual self-evaluations, prior Faculty Personnel Committee evaluations of probationary faculty status, and the Mid-Tenure Review by the Faculty Personnel Committee.
- Course enrollment numbers and student course evaluations.
- Representative syllabi from the range of his/her courses taught at the School.
- Written evaluations from at least three Iliff faculty members familiar with the individual's work selected by the Dean, in consultation with the Faculty Personnel Committee.
- Letters of evaluation from five outside referees, selected by the Dean in consultation with the Faculty Personnel Committee from a list of ten scholars in the candidate's field -- five scholars selected by the candidate and five scholars selected confidentially by the Faculty Personnel Committee.
- Letters of evaluation from students and other individuals in the Iliff community, as deemed appropriate by the Faculty Personnel Committee in consultation with the Dean.
- Peer evaluation of the faculty member’s teaching as deemed appropriate by the Faculty Personnel Committee and by the Dean.
Publication Standards for Tenure and Promotion
Iliff’s standards of scholarship for tenure and promotion reflect concern for both quantity and quality of scholarship. Quantitatively: One substantive book published or accepted for publication or five to seven substantive articles or publications, and a clear agenda for future scholarship. Qualitatively: For tenure, the candidate’s publications must demonstrate his or her ability to make an original contribution to the field beyond the dissertation and appropriate to the particular audience of that field. For full professor, the candidate’s publications must demonstrate ongoing original contributions to the field as recognized by one’s peers.
The decision of where to publish is part of the task of setting a scholarly agenda, and is shaped in part by the norms of the field. Appropriate forms of publication include monographs, chapters in invited volumes, articles in juried journals, or other publications appropriate to the field. It is recognized that the landscape of publishing is constantly shifting, and that substantial work is increasingly being published in electronic journals. For the purpose of tenure, then, such publications will be carefully evaluated on an ad hoc basis, and may, if so determined by the evaluators (the Faculty Personnel Committee, internal reviewers, and external reviewers), be given equal weight as works published in more traditional venues.
All faculty members must demonstrate original scholarship. Measures of the quality of scholarship include acceptance of the scholar’s work by publishers respected in their field, published reviews of the work, and judgments of the work by senior scholars in the field and by the Faculty Personnel Committee. The influence and use of the publication will also be considered through, for example, the frequency of citation in other works, or when selected as course textbooks and class readings beyond the context of the Iliff School of Theology.
In setting a publishing agenda, faculty members often build on the work of the dissertation to establish themselves within the public discourse of their field. Minimally revised dissertation materials, such as materials appearing in a dissertation series with only editorial changes, will normally count for a total of one article. Substantive revisions or new research building on work begun in the dissertation will vary in credit awarded for publication based on the amount of material published, the amount of revision required, and the amount of new scholarship generated. In such cases, the faculty member will negotiate with the Faculty Personnel Committee and the Dean to determine appropriate credit for publication. Such conversations will typically also include consultation with internal and external reviewers in the field of the publication.
It is understood as a part of faculty evaluation and faculty development that each faculty member will regularly consult with the Dean, Faculty Personnel Committee, and other colleagues in developing a publishing agenda and reviewing her/his achievements.
Tenure Clock Modifications
Upon request to the Dean and the Faculty Personnel Committee, and in consultation with the President and the Academic Affairs Committee of the Board of Trustees, a faculty member may “stop the tenure clock” or extend the probationary period of employment, with or without taking a full or partial leave of absence, especially if the faculty member (regardless of gender identity or sex) is a primary or coequal caregiver of newborn or newly adopted children. Thus, faculty members are entitled to stop the tenure clock while continuing to perform faculty duties. The tenure clock may be stopped for up to one year for each child, but the faculty member may stop the clock only twice before being reviewed for tenure and promotion, resulting in no more than two one-year extensions of the probationary period. These extensions would be available to the individual whether or not the faculty member was on leave.
Tenure Not Granted Through Default or Administrative Error
If, through administrative error, the School fails to provide notice, or to proceed in accordance with the applicable time periods in a faculty member’s tenure clock as established upon employment in the initial hiring contract, the School will make good faith attempts to remedy the deficiency. Under no circumstances, however, will tenure be granted through default or administrative error.
Steps for Advancement to Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor
Consideration for advancement to tenure and/or consideration for promotion to associate professor is normally initiated by the Faculty Personnel Committee in consultation with the Dean.
The Dean will report forthcoming applications for advancement to tenure and/or applications for promotion to associate professor, as early as possible each school year, to the President and the Academic Affairs Committee of the Board of Trustees so that salary raises for promotion and adjustments to benefits can be included in the School’s budget planning process for the following fiscal year.
- A faculty member ready for tenure review and promotion to associate professor, submits to the Faculty Personnel Committee and the Dean the materials and documents.
- The Faculty Personnel Committee may at its discretion invite one or more tenured faculty members in the same, or in a related field as the non-tenured faculty member, to consult in this review process. The Faculty Personnel Committee prepares a report and recommendation based upon these materials and using the appropriate criteria for evaluation. Then, the Committee sends its recommendation and all relevant data to the Dean. The Dean reports to, and discusses with, the candidate the substance of the report received from the Faculty Personnel Committee. The Dean sends that recommendation to the President and to the Academic Affairs Committee of the Board of Trustees, along with the following materials: the Dean’s own recommendation, the Faculty Personnel Committee’s report to the Dean, the candidate’s CV and Self-Evaluation Report. If the President deems it necessary, he or she may request any other documents from the file. If the President concurs, he or she reports the recommendation to the Board of Trustees for final confirmation.
- If the President does not concur that the candidate meets the evaluation standards, or argues that financial exigencies or special knowledge about the suitability of the individual prevent the granting of tenure or promotion, the President will make a report to the Faculty Personnel Committee and Dean outlining the concern(s). In cases where the President does not concur with the recommendation, the President forwards to the Academic Affairs Committee of the Board of Trustees his/her recommendation along with a response from the Dean and the Faculty Personnel Committee.
Denial of Tenure
Following the denial of tenure, a faculty member will serve no more than one additional contract year. The Dean may recommend to the President an exception to this policy.
Steps for Promotion to Professor
Timeline for Promotion to Professor
An associate professor may normally be considered for promotion to professor after a minimum of twelve years of full-time ranked teaching in an accredited college, university, or school of theology or a minimum of six years of full-time teaching at the rank of associate professor. The process may be initiated by the associate professor or by the Faculty Personnel Committee with the concurrence of the Dean. The Faculty Personnel Committee and Dean will follow the same review process steps and notification for advancement to associate professor and tenure.
The Dean will report forthcoming applications for promotion and advancement to professor, as early as possible each school year, to the President and the Academic Affairs Committee of the Board of Trustees so that salary raises for promotion and adjustments to benefits can be included in the School’s budget planning process for the following fiscal year.
Data for Promotion to Professor
The Faculty Personnel Committee’s report and recommendation to the Dean and to the President for a faculty member’s promotion to the rank of Professor will be based on a dossier that includes the following data:
- Current curriculum vitae.
- An evaluative self-report based on the criteria.
- All significant published work (or work accepted for publication) since the granting of tenure.
- Course enrollment numbers and course evaluations.
- Representative syllabi from the range of his/her courses taught at the School.
- Written evaluations from at least three Iliff faculty members familiar with the individual's work selected by the Dean, in consultation with the Faculty Personnel Committee.
- Letters of evaluation from five outside referees, selected by the Dean in consultation with the Faculty Personnel Committee from a list of ten scholars in the candidate's field -- five scholars selected by the candidate and five scholars selected by the Faculty Personnel Committee.
- Letters of evaluation from students and other individuals in the Iliff community, as deemed appropriate by the Faculty Personnel Committee in consultation with the Dean.
Denial of Promotion to Professor
If the President does not concur that the candidate meets the evaluation standards, or argues that financial exigencies or special knowledge about the suitability of the individual prevent the granting of promotion and advancement in rank, the President will make a report to the Faculty Personnel Committee and Dean outlining the concern(s). In cases where the President does not concur with the recommendation, the President forwards to the Academic Affairs Committee of the Board of Trustees his/her recommendation along with a response from the Dean and the Faculty Personnel Committee.
Comments
0 comments
Article is closed for comments.