Subject: Promotion Review
Revision Date: 03/07/94, 09/18/98, 09/22/01, 06/16/05
To define criteria, procedures, and conditions for granting promotion from associate professor to professor. In the special circumstance that a tenured or special status assistant professor seeks promotion to associate professor, all of the subsequent procedures that follow in this policy apply to the candidate with the exception of acceptable standards for promotion. Tenured assistant professors seeking promotion to the associate professor rank are expected to meet the departmental standards for tenure and promotion of assistant professors to the rank of associate professor as defined in the departmental faculty evaluation plan (FEP) by the chair and the departmental faculty. For assistant professors applying for the rank of associate professor, the Departmental Promotion Committee will consist of all tenured associate professors and full professors.
I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Faculty members have an important responsibility in providing evaluations of peers in the promotion process. This responsibility involves the application of academic and professional judgments in a framework of shared authority among various levels of review and between faculty and academic administrators. Faculty, academic administrators, the President and the Board of Regents recognize the central authority of the Morehead State University Mission Statement. Promotion evaluations must be consistent with the responsibilities and general principles outlined in the Mission Statement.
Morehead State University is committed to quality teaching, learning and the improvement of teaching through assessment. The use of various means of formative assessment provides a comprehensive picture of an individual's development as a teacher. Therefore, the position of Morehead State University is that assessment of teaching be, first and foremost, formative and used for the purpose of improving teaching. Morehead State University is committed to supporting faculty of all ranks in order to develop a cohesive community of teachers and learners.
All Standing I faculty in each department will establish acceptable standards for evaluating its faculty in the department Faculty Evaluation Plan. The appropriate college dean and the University Promotion Committee must approve these standards for promotion and subsequent revisions to ensure quality, equity, and fairness. Standing I faculty in IRAPP will follow a consistent model with standards being approved by the Dean of IRAPP and the University Promotion Committee. The Dean of IRAPP shall consult with each faculty member and shall determine a "home" department (other than IRAPP) for each faculty member.
The promotion procedures consist of peer and administrative judgments and reviews at the department, college, and the University levels. These judgments and reviews regarding promotion must evaluate, certify and document that the performance level of an associate professor is at or above the performance level defined by departmental promotion standards. Departmental faculty may choose to develop discipline-specific standards for teaching, professional achievement, and service. At each level, the review process will reflect the perspective of the reviewing body as well as the principles of the Mission Statement.
Reviews by the Department Promotion Committee, the Department Chair, the College Promotion Committee, and the College Dean will make judgments that focus on the quality and quantity of the professional and scholarly performance in the areas of teaching, professional achievement, and service.
Performance-based salary increase (PBSI) and promotion evaluations are separate processes, and consequently, meeting or exceeding PBSI criteria does not automatically ensure a favorable promotion decision. PBSI evaluations are based on annual performance whereas promotion evaluations are based on cumulative performance. As the University strives to recruit and maintain an outstanding faculty, meeting the minimal expectations of performance will not be sufficient for promotion to professor
Reviews by the University Promotion Committee, the Provost and Executive Vice President, and the President will be guided by criteria established in the departmental Faculty Evaluation Plan. University-level reviews by the Provost and Executive Vice President and the President will bring broader administrative judgments to bear
II. GENERAL CRITERIA FOR PROMOTION
Promotions will be based on recognized performance in each of the three areas listed below as appropriate to the particular responsibilities of the faculty member as outlined in the Departmental Faculty Evaluation Plan. Promotion is neither an unqualified right nor an automatic consequence of having completed a certain period of service.
Accomplishments in each of the three areas listed below must be recognized and evaluated by the Department Promotion Committee, the Department Chair, the College Promotion Committee, the College Dean, the University Promotion Committee, the Provost and Executive Vice President, and the President. Evaluations will be guided by promotion standards contained in the departmental FEP.
1. Teaching: Teaching excellence as recognized by colleagues, department chairs, and deans and as assessed by students. Other evidence may include, but not be limited to, the following: student contact activities (advisement, supervision of internships and theses); development of new courses, programs, or innovative instructional techniques; teaching awards and honors.
2. Professional achievement: Documentation of professional achievement may include, but not be limited to, the following: research, scholarly or creative achievements; leadership roles in professional organizations; participation in professional meetings, seminars and workshops; additional graduate study in the teaching field beyond the minimum required for meeting standards for promotion to professor or contract stipulations; work experience; and/or consulting.
3. Professional Service: Service is recognized, evaluated and expected of faculty desiring promotion to professor. Service may include, but not be limited to, the following: active participation on University, college, department, and/or Faculty Senate ad hoc and standing committees; service as an official representative of the University; sponsorship of approved co-curricular activities; coordination of and participation in University workshops, conferences, clinics, in-service presentations, and special events; development of proposals; development of functioning relationships with professional groups in business, industry, trade, education, government, and public schools; performance of public service within the faculty's field of expertise.
III. GENERAL STATEMENTS REGARDING PROMOTION
TIME IN RANK:
For faculty appointment at the Associate Professor rank with tenure up to three years of service may be applied to the time in rank requirements for promotion outlined in PAc-1 within the first year following appointment to Morehead State University. Credit for equivalent professional service will be recommended to the Provost and Executive Vice President by the Departmental Promotion Committee, Department Chair, and College Dean in accordance with the criteria established for promotion.
The promotion portfolio must contain a letter of intent, portfolio summary (extended curriculum vitae), and supporting documents. The format for the presentation of promotion material will be determined by the University Promotion Committee. The letter of intent, addressed to the Department Chair, will state the desire to be considered for promotion and will contain a summary of major responsibilities and activities since the last rank assignment that merit consideration for the promotion. If a faculty member applies previous service at another institution to the time in rank requirement, the previous service must be documented with respect to teaching excellence, professional achievement, and service to that institution and community. The candidate's portfolio must document all qualifications, and it must be complete at the time of submission.
The following are guidelines for organizing the portfolio. Candidates should respond to or supply evidence for all categories that apply. Whenever appropriate specific titles, dates, pages, and publishers shall be included.
1. Personal Data
b. Present rank, administrative title (if applicable), and department
c. Dates of initial rank assignment and promotions at Morehead State University
d. Field or fields of specialization
e. Education completed: degrees, certifications, and/or licenses with institutions and dates awarded or granted
f. Teaching prior to Morehead State University or related work experience prior to Morehead State University
(4) Rank changes and dates
g. Memberships in academic honor organizations
2. Teaching--Note whenever reassigned time was given.
a. Teaching load each semester
(1) Numbers and titles of courses taught
(2) Credit hours/workload
b. Teaching Evaluations
(1) Student (e.g., nationally normed or university-accepted, supplemental, etc.)
(2) Peer and/or Chair
c. Student contact activities
(1) Number of advisees: graduate, undergraduate
(2) Supervisor of internships
(3) Direction of theses and service on theses committees
(4) Direction of independent studies
(5) Service on oral examination committees
d. New courses and programs developed
e. Innovative instructional techniques developed
f. Teaching awards and honors
g. Other evidence of effective teaching
3. Professional Achievement
(1) List of published articles
(2) List of published books
(3) List of published reviews
(4) Work in progress
(5) List of papers read at conferences
(6) Editorship of or service on editorial boards of professional journals
(7) List of scholarly grants
(9) Basic and/or applied research activities
(10) Fellowships awarded
(11) Awards for scholarship
b. Creative Productions--List of:
(2) Musical compositions published
(3) Poems, plays, stories, novels published
(4) Work in Progress
(5) Artistic performances
(6) Speaking engagements
(8) Awards for creative productions
c. Academic and/or professional organizations
(2) Leadership roles
(3) Active participation at conferences
(4) Awards for professional service
d. Continuing education
(1) Seminars attended and form of participation
(2) Workshops attended and form of participation
(3) Graduate study beyond the required terminal degree
(b) Degree being pursued and anticipated date of completion
(c) Credit hours completed
e. Relevant work experience and consulting
f. Other evidence of professional growth
a. List of University, college, department, and Faculty Senate ad hoc and standing committees with level indicated in each case
b. Sponsorship or advisor of University-approved extracurricular activities
c. Service as official representative of the University
d. Coordination of and participation in Morehead State University workshops, conferences, clinics, in-service, and special events
(2) Form of participation
e. Development of proposals to benefit the University
(1) Title of proposal
(2) Date submitted
(3) Accepted or rejected
f. Development of relations with professional groups (business, industry, trade, education, and government)
g. Honors and awards for service
h. Other service
The supporting documents should be arranged in the following categories:
1. Documents which support personal data (for example):
a. Copies of official letters of promotion at other institutions
2. Documents which support teaching excellence (for example):
a. Course Syllabi
b. Course assessment materials (exams, assignments, evidence of feedback to students, etc.)
c. Copies of results of teacher ratings (e.g., student, peer and/or chair, advising)
d. Copies of descriptions of innovative instructional techniques
e. Copies of teaching awards and honors
3. Documents which support evidence of professional achievement (for example):
a. Copies of published articles, books, reviews
b. Copies or evidence of work in progress
c. Copies of conference papers /posters/abstracts
d. Copies of relevant pages in conference programs
e. Copies, slides, tapes of, or patents for creative productions
f. Evidence of roles in academic organizations
g. Evidence of continuing education including transcripts of graduate work
h. Programs identifying speaking engagements
4. Documents which support service (for example):
a. Copies of proposals to benefit the University
b. Copies of honors or awards for service
5. The department's Faculty Evaluation Plan(s) for the years being evaluated.
IV. GENERAL PROCEDURES FOR PROMOTION REVIEW
1. No candidate for promotion, candidate's spouse, immediate family (as defined by PG-22), department chairs, or deans will serve on promotion committees.
2. No faculty member will serve on more than one promotion committee for a given candidate. A tenured IRAPP faculty member may serve on promotion committees at the department level and for IRAPP during the same year.
3. The chairperson of each promotion committee will be elected by the committee from the membership.
4. The University Promotion Committee will consist of faculty members selected by the Faculty Senate from the tenured, full-time faculty and must include one representative from each college and five additional at-large faculty members, and shall include both males and females. No two representatives will be from the same department. Committee members shall be professors. In the event that professors are unavailable, associate professors may serve. Term of service will be three years, with one-third being replaced each year. A member may not hold successive terms. The Faculty Senate will appoint members to the committee by May 1 of the prior academic year. Committee members will be notified in writing as to their own and others' selection to the committee prior to the committee's first meeting. IRAPP faculty will be evaluated by the college committee associated with each faculty member's "home" department.
5. No member of the University Tenure or Faculty Rights and Responsibilities Committees will serve concurrently on the University Promotion Committee.
6. The College Promotion Committee will consist of one representative from each department of the college. These members will be tenured, full-time faculty members. Committee members will be professors. In the event that professors are unavailable, associate professors may serve. Each department will elect, by secret ballot, a representative to serve a two-year term on the college committee by September 1. Committee members will be notified in writing as to their own and others' selection prior to the Committee's first meeting.
7. All full-time tenured professors in a Department will serve on the Department Promotion Committee. The committee will have a minimum of five faculty members. In the event that there are fewer than five full-time tenured professors in the Department, then full-time tenured associate professors from the Department will be chosen by the tenured faculty in the Department. In the event that there are fewer than five eligible members in the Department, the Department's tenured faculty will provide the Dean a list consisting of twice the number of full-time tenured professors within the same college needed to form a committee of at least five members and from which the Dean will select the outside members of the committee. For IRAPP faculty, the Promotion Committee in IRAPP shall consist of professors in IRAPP. Tenured faculty members in IRAPP will select two tenured faculty from the candidate's academic discipline to serve on the IRAPP Promotion Committee. Should this strategy fail to produce a committee of five, the tenured faculty members in IRAPP shall collectively invite enough full-time tenured faculty from IRAPP faculty affiliates to form the committee.
8. All voting on candidates will be by secret ballot. Recommendation for promotion requires an affirmative vote by the majority of the committee membership voting. There will be no abstentions in the voting process. In all committee recommendations, the number of "yes" votes and the number of "no" votes must be recorded.
9. Justification for the recommendation of each candidate must be in a detailed evaluation on the appropriate form. The evaluation must reflect the candidate's teaching excellence, professional achievement, and service activities and include statements of strengths and weaknesses. If the vote for promotion is split, minority opinions must be included in the written evaluation.
10. Promotion committee deliberations must be treated confidentially and must not be discussed outside of promotion committee meetings.
V. THE PROMOTION REVIEW PROCESS
1. The Department Promotion Committee will review the portfolio and submit a written evaluation of the strengths and perceived weaknesses of the portfolio to the candidate using the Department's Faculty Evaluation Plan as the criteria for evaluation. The written evaluation, which will be signed by all committee members, will document the validity of the information contained in the candidate's department promotion portfolio as it relates to the Department's Faculty Evaluation Plan.
The primary purpose of this evaluation is to evaluate and certify the items and statements contained in the candidate's Promotion Portfolio, and to ensure that the performance level of the faculty member is at or above the performance level specified by the departmental criteria for promotion to professor. The Department Promotion Committee may also request additional documentation of items and statements made in the candidate's Promotion Portfolio. Any additional documentation and supporting evidence will be forwarded up the chain of review.
It is the responsibility of the Department Promotion Committee to conduct a vote which affirms or denies their support of the Promotion Portfolio, with a copy of the evaluation and vote tally delivered to the candidate. Voting will be by secret ballot, and a sealed ballot by an absent faculty member may be included in the tally if all of the ballots are opened and counted at the same time at the Department Promotion Committee meeting. Abstentions are not allowed at either the Department, College, or University Promotion Committee levels of review.
2. The Department Promotion Committee will then forward the Promotion Portfolio, written evaluation, and vote tally to the Department Chair, who will add his/her written evaluation to the portfolio. A copy of this evaluation also will be delivered to the promotion candidate. In the case of IRAPP faculty, the department chair in the faculty member's discipline shall evaluate the portfolio.
It is also the responsibility of the Department Chair to evaluate and certify that the supporting documentation is at or above the performance level specified by the departmental criteria for promotion to professor. This evaluation and certification must be part of the Chair's letter of evaluation. It is also the responsibility of the Department Chair to certify that academic requirements, such as terminal degrees, years of teaching/previous service, etc., have been met.
3. The Department Chair will then forward the Promotion Portfolio, Department Committee written evaluation and vote tally, and his/her written evaluation to the College Promotion Committee. IRAPP faculty will be evaluated by the college committee associated with each faculty member's "home" department. The College Promotion Committee will review the portfolio and submit a written evaluation of the strengths and perceived weaknesses of the portfolio to the candidate using the criteria for promotion to professor as defined in the Department's FEP.
It is the responsibility of the College Promotion Committee to conduct a vote which affirms or denies their support of the Promotion Portfolio, with a copy of the evaluation and vote tally delivered to the candidate. Voting will be by secret ballot, and a sealed ballot by an absent faculty member may be included in the tally if all of the ballots are opened and counted at the same time at the College Promotion Committee meeting.
4. The College Promotion Committee will then forward the Promotion Portfolio, Department Committee, Chair, and College Committee written evaluation, and vote tallies to the College Dean.
5. The College Dean will review the Promotion Portfolio and provide a written evaluation of the portfolio, with a copy of this evaluation delivered to the candidate. In the case of IRAPP faculty, the Dean of IRAPP shall evaluate the portfolio. The College Dean will then forward all materials to the University Promotion Committee for review.
The promotion candidate may then add a letter of response to the University Promotion Committee which responds to any or all of the written evaluations of his/her portfolio within seven calendar days after receipt of the written evaluation from the College Dean.
6. The University Promotion Committee will review the portfolio and submit a written evaluation of the strengths and perceived weaknesses of the portfolio to the candidate using the criteria for promotion to professor as defined in the Department's FEP.
It is the responsibility of the University Promotion Committee to conduct a vote, with at least two-thirds of its membership present, which affirms or denies their support of the Promotion Portfolio, with a copy of the evaluation and vote tally delivered to the candidate. Voting will be by secret ballot. Absentee ballots will not be permitted. A recommendation to "promote" or "not promote" requires a simple majority of the entire committee membership.
The promotion candidate may then add a letter of response to the Provost and Executive Vice President which responds to any or all of the written evaluations of his/her portfolio within seven calendar days after receipt of the written evaluation from the University Promotion Committee.
7. The University Promotion Committee will then forward all materials and their final recommendation and written evaluation to the Office of the Provost and Executive Vice President.
8. The Provost and Executive Vice President will review all materials, vote tallies, written evaluations, and recommendations and make a recommendation to the President. Should the recommendation of the Provost and Executive Vice President differ from the recommendation of the University Promotion Committee, the Provost and Executive Vice President will consult with the University Promotion Committee prior to making a recommendation to the President. The President will make the final recommendation to the Board of Regents.
9. The President will inform each candidate of his or her recommendation at least two weeks prior to the Board of Regents meeting. Letters to candidates not recommended for promotion should state the specific reasons for rejection of the promotion application. Candidates not recommended for promotion may request a meeting with the Provost and Executive Vice President and/or the President prior to the Board of Regents meeting.
I. ACADEMIC FREEDOM
Faculty and administration will observe the conditions on academic freedom and responsibility for teaching and research as outlined in PAc-14.
VII. GENERAL DATES FOR THE PROMOTION REVIEW PROCESS
1. Specific dates and deadlines for the promotion review process in each year will be set and distributed to the faculty in a timely manner by the Office of the Provost and Executive Vice President .