RTP Procedures | UNC Charlotte

Criteria and Procedures Used at Department and College Levels to Conduct Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Reviews in the

College of Education

The University of North Carolina at Charlotte

First Edition: September 1, 1994

Second Edition: August 15, 1995

Third Edition: August 15, 1996

Fourth Edition: March 23, 2000

Fifth Edition: 2004

                          Specific Standards Relevant to Three Domains
                          of    Scholarship

                   Teaching             Research             Service

Section Three:   The Candidate’s Dossier for
                          Reappointment,Promotion, Required and Optional
                          Sections of a Candidate’s Dossier

In the Vision Statement of the College of Education (Rising to the challenge: preparing excellent professionals, 2004), the vision for faculty achievement centers on these actions:

The College of Education first developed and approved the Criteria and Procedures Used at Department and College Levels to Conduct Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Reviews in the College of Education at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte in 1994. The document is designed to help faculty reach the vision of excellence described above and to guide faculty and administrative reviewers in making fair and appropriate recommendations for reappointment, promotion, and/or tenure. The document is a living document that has been modified in 1995, 1996, and 2000 by faculty vote and in response to both our experience with the document and the evolving mission of the College. This latest revision again responds to our experience (the need for greater clarity for some aspects of the criteria and procedures) and our evolving mission, most especially UNC Charlotte’s reclassification as a doctoral, research intensive institution in 2000.

Like its predecessors, this version, the 5^th edition of the Criteria and Procedures Used at Department and College Levels to Conduct Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Reviews in the College of Education at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, provides guidance to candidates who are preparing for reappointment, promotion, and/or tenure reviews and for the faculty committees and University administrators who conduct the reviews. The procedures for personnel reviews that are described in this document are intended to be consistent with those described in the University’s Tenure Policies, Regulations, and Procedures (TPRP-04.) In the event of a conflict between this document and the TPRP-04, the terms of the TPRP-04 shall have precedent.

This latest edition of the Criteria and Promotions document is the result of a two-year faculty-led process that examined our document for accuracy and clarity and made recommendations for improvement. This effort was led by a subcommittee of the College’s Committee for Accreditation/Continuous Improvement: Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and Development. Dr. Melba Spooner, Associate Professor, Elementary Education, chaired the committee. Committee members included:

The Committee began its work in July 2002 by sending a survey to all faculty who were tenured or in tenure eligible positions. The survey asked faculty to indicate their degree of agreement with the following statements:

4. The annual report (content and format) was useful in the preparation of my dossier.

5. More specific guidelines for formatting/organizing the dossier would be helpful.

6. The feedback received from the chair, DRC, CRC, and Dean was helpful in improving my teaching, research, and service.

7. The dossier should provide documentation of effective instruction based on student learning.

The survey then asked all respondents to rate all standards listed in the 4^th edition of the document (March, 2000) in Teaching, Research, and Service on these two dimensions:

As a next step in assessing the effectiveness of the document, a series of four focus groups for faculty were held in October 2002. Additionally, interviews were held with the Provost, the Dean, and Department Chairs regarding their experiences with the document as a guide to RPT decisions and as a tool for faculty development. The Committee also interviewed two full professors who bring diversity to the College to get their perspectives.

The Committee analyzed the findings from the survey and from the interviews and focus groups and, based on these findings, generated a list of recommendations to guide the revision of the Criteria and Procedures Used at Department and College Levels to Conduct Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Reviews in the College of Education. These recommendations, which were presented to the faculty and approved unanimously in March 2003, served as guidelines that directed the revision process:

1. Expand the workgroup for this task to make sure that there is good representation by gender and by rank.

a. Review existing criteria to determine which should be applied generally to all areas

b. Determine (if any) which criteria that currently apply to promotion to associate professor should be moved to apply to promotion to full professor

c. Specifically communicate that for promotion to full professor the candidate must meet all three areas (teaching, research, and service), but that they must have distinction in one area. The candidate should explicitly identify the area of distinction.

d. Identify criteria that are examples of “distinction,” and/or identify additional criteria of distinction in each area (teaching, research, and service).

3. Review and subsequently develop guidelines for the RPT document that clarify the document’s use in a holistic manner. The guidelines should provide a structure and process for CRC, DRC, and Department Chair annual training in the review process. The guidelines should be reviewed annually.

4. Review criteria to edit language for clarity, and identify/specify criteria of primary importance (required) and criteria of secondary importance (recommended/optional).

5. Develop a mentoring program for faculty who are post-tenure and who are interested in promotion from associate to full professor.

6. Develop a faculty-mentoring program that is a sustained, valued, and rewarded role within the College.

The Committee used these guiding principles to work over the summer in 2003 to revise the document. The draft of the revised document was sent by email to all faculty in September 2003. Open meetings, departmental discussions, and review by the College of Education Faculty Council occurred in September. The revision was presented formally to the College of Education faculty at its October 7, 2003 meeting. Following that meeting, paper ballots were distributed to eligible faculty voters (tenured/ tenure eligible faculty.) Forty-five ballots were cast, with the following results:

This 5^th edition not only reflects the needed changes identified by the faculty to enhance clarity and to capture accurately the expectations for faculty in the College of Education but also reflects great respect for the original document which was implemented in 1994. Let me briefly review the development of that first edition. During Spring Semester 1994, Dr. John Nagle, then Dean of the College, asked the members of the 1993-94 College Review Committee to help him develop clear, written, and public criteria and procedures for conducting reappointment, promotion, and tenure reviews at the College level. The members of the committee included Richard Antonak, Carl Ashbaugh, Linda Berne, Bobbie Rowland, Gene Schaffer, and me. The preface to the first edition described feedback on the initial draft as “generally very positive, and most of those who provided input cited the increased clarity, focus, structure, rigor, and helpfulness of the new criteria and procedures for all involved.” The first edition was approved in 1994 for piloting in 1994-95. In the fall of 1995, each of the College’s academic departments formally adopted the new criteria and procures for use in their department-level reviews for reappointment, promotion, and tenure in 1995-96. As a consequence, for the first time, the same criteria and procedures guided the reviews at both the department and the College levels.

Let me conclude this introduction by thanking the Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and Development Committee, a subcommittee of the College’s Accreditation/ Continuous Improvement Committee, for its leadership in preparing this revision and to all who participated in

the review and debate that led to the approval of the document. Our vision for faculty excellence is supported and strengthened by these criteria and procedures.

Several principles under gird these criteria and procedures for use by the College Review Committee and Dean and by department review committees and department chairs to conduct reappointment, promotion, and tenure reviews of faculty in the College of Education:

1. The criteria and procedures used at College and department levels are consistent with both The Code of The University of North Carolina and the guidelines defined in the Tenure Policies, Regulations, and Procedures of The University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Three sections of the latter document are particularly relevant:

Recommendations for initial appointment, reappointment, promotion, or for conferral of permanent tenure shall be based upon an assessment of at least the following: (1) the faculty member's demonstrated professional competence; (2) potential for future contribution to The University of North Carolina at Charlotte; and (3) institutional needs and resources. (page 3)

Except as herein provided, decisions pertaining to reappointment, promotion and conferral of permanent tenure are, without further recourse, the responsibility of the officers of administration authorized to make them, acting in accordance with procedures prescribed herein. In exercise of their judgment, whether in the first instance or in review of a recommendation, such officers may take into account and use as the basis of decision, in whole or in part, any factors deemed relevant to total institutional interests, except that in no event shall a decision not to reappoint be based upon: (1) exercise by the faculty member of rights of freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States or by Article I of the Constitution of North Carolina; or (2) discrimination based upon the race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, age, or national origin of the faculty member; or (3) personal malice. (page 11)

Section V. A: Material Procedural Irregularities as Grounds for Review of a Decision

"Material procedural irregularities" means departures from prescribed procedures governing reappointment that cast reasonable doubt upon the validity of the original decision not to reappoint. (page 14)

2. The criteria and procedures used at department levels are consistent with the criteria and procedures used at the College level.

3. The review process at both College and department levels is guided by an explicit set of professorial role expectations for all faculty in the College that include both broad expectations and specific standards relevant to teaching, research, and service (See Section Two).

4. Responsibility for presenting the case for reappointment, promotion, or tenure rests with the faculty candidate, who, with the help of his or her department chair, is expected to prepare a dossier that addresses the professorial role expectations of all faculty in the College (See Section Three for a description of the content of the expected dossier, including both its required sections of information and an overview of potential other materials that a candidate may or may not choose to include).

5. A critical part of the candidate's dossier is a narrative statement in which the candidate describes how he or she has met and integrated the teaching, research, and service expectations of all faculty in the College (See Section Three for more descriptive information about the narrative statement).

6. When conducting their independent reviews (See Section Four), the College Review Committee and the Dean and department review committees and department chairs are expected to use the professorial role expectations described in Section Two as the criteria for evaluation. They are expected to review the candidate's complete dossier in terms of both the broad expectations of a faculty member and the specific standards for teaching, research, and service. Then, based on their assessment of the evidence presented and available to them, the committees, chairs, and Dean are expected to independently consider the total profile presented by each candidate and to make independent holistic judgments about his or her performance and potential as a faculty member in the College.

7. Although different profiles of faculty activities and accomplishments will inevitably emerge -- and should be encouraged, given the breadth of experience, expertise, interests, and responsibilities among faculty in the College -- the following decision-rules will guide both the College Review Committee and the Dean when making final recommendations or decisions on reappointment, promotion, and tenure.

a. For reappointment, there must be clear evidence in the candidate's total profile that (1) the University's criteria for reappointment have been satisfied, (2) the broad expectations of a faculty member in the college are currently being satisfied, (3) the candidate's performance to date satisfactorily addresses the college's specific standards for teaching, research, and service, and (4) the candidate has demonstrated the potential to be successful in his or her subsequent tenure and promotion review;

b. For tenure and promotion to Associate Professor, there must be clear evidence in the candidate's total profile that (1) the University's criteria for tenure and promotion have been satisfied, (2) the broad expectations of a faculty member in the college continue to be satisfied, (3) and there is a satisfactory record of accomplishment with promise of continued contribution and productivity in all three domains of professorial activity -- teaching, research, and service. While individual faculty profiles are expected to vary, the College Review Committee will not recommend tenure and promotion if the candidate fails to provide evidence of a satisfactory record of accomplishment with promise of continued contribution and productivity in any one of the three domains; and

c. For promotion to Professor, there must be clear evidence in the candidate's total profile that (1) the University's criteria for promotion have been satisfied, (2) the broad expectations of a faculty member in the college continue to be satisfied, (3) there is a strong and sustained record of accomplishment in all three domains of professorial activity -- teaching, research, and service -- and (4) there is distinction in at least one of the three domains but not necessarily all three. To assist in the review process, candidates for promotion to Professor should identify the area(s) of distinction in the narrative statement.

8. To guide individual faculty members in their professional development and to provide them with regular and systematic feedback about their performance, annual evaluations conducted within departments (both a faculty member's annual report of activities and a department chair's annual evaluation and feedback) are expected routinely to (a) clarify the faculty member's specific job responsibilities and (b) evaluate his or her performance in terms of both departmental expectations and the professorial role expectations described in Section Two for all faculty in the College of Education.

1. Support the mission and programs of the College and University appropriate to one's role;

2. Demonstrate integrity and high standards of ethical and professional behavior;

3. Be collegial, collaborative, humane, respectful of diversity, and sensitive to others, including students, staff members, other faculty, and professional colleagues in the field;

5. Maintain continuing appointment to the Graduate Faculty of the University (unless one's program area is exclusively undergraduate); and

6. Demonstrate an integrated professional focus across three domains of scholarship:

· Supervising student-directed scholarship (e.g., research, comprehensives, indedependent study projects, theses, dissertations, etc.)

Specific Standards Relevant to Three Domains of Scholarship: Teaching, Research, and Service

The standards for reappointment: The standards for tenure with strong evidence of potential that they will be met when the tenure decision is scheduled to be made.

*3. Reflects the UNC Charlotte conceptual framework, incorporates appropriate assessments, and integrates diversity through coursework.

*4. Clearly aligns teaching to programmatic objectives and accreditation standards

*6. Assesses and values student learning and adjusts instruction appropriately to enhance that learning, using multiple sources of data to improve practice

9. Demonstrates leadership in mentoring colleagues, particularly junior faculty, in their teaching

11. Possesses recognition in the College and University for quality of one's teaching

12. Makes substantive contributions in teaching and the professional development of educational professionals by conducting professional development seminars, publications, and/or developing curriculum materials at the state, local, and national levels

Potential evidence for a faculty member to present when demonstrating compliance with the above standards:

· *Student evaluations of course and instructors (all evaluations since last personnel review)

· University Curriculum and Instructional Development (CID) grant proposals and grants

· Requests to participate in curriculum development at the local, regional, and/or state level

Note: The above items or a sample of them may be included in a "teaching portfolio."

The standards for reappointment: The standards for tenure with strong evidence of potential that they will be met when the tenure decision is scheduled to be made.

*2. Provides consistent accurate advice to students, and is knowledgeable about programs, policies, and procedures

3. Is considered by students and colleagues to be a helpful and conscientious advisor

The standards for promotion to Professor: The standards for tenure plus this additional standard:

5. Provides excellent advising and mentoring for graduate students (masters, doctoral)

6. Creates opportunities and involves students in professional activities beyond the classroom

Potential evidence for a faculty member to present when demonstrating compliance with the above standards:

· *Evaluations of the quality of advisement provided by current students and graduates

· Correspondence from students, alumni, colleagues, program coordinators, and administrators

c. Supervising student-directed scholarship (e.g., research, comprehensives, independent study projects, theses, Master's degree projects, dissertations, etc.)

The standards for reappointment: The standards for tenure with strong evidence of potential that they will be met when the tenure decision is scheduled to be made.

*1. Possesses expertise in the content and/or technical skills required for student-directed scholarship

*2. Provides effective guidance and advisement that enables students to complete their research and scholarship successfully

3. Possesses the ability to evaluate the outcomes or products of student-directed scholarship

6. Directs student scholarship activities that have significant positive impact on students' professional development

8. Fosters publication and presentation opportunities for undergraduate and graduate students (masters, doctoral)

Potential evidence for a faculty member to present when demonstrating compliance with the above standards:

· *Bibliography of selected projects, reports, theses, or dissertations completed by students

· Correspondence from faculty peers, department chairs, and other committee members

The standards for reappointment: The standards for tenure with strong evidence of potential that they will be met when the tenure decision is scheduled to be made.

*2. Is knowledgeable of changes in licensure, certification, and accreditation standards in one's field

4. Participates effectively and successfully in course and program development that is based on established research, best practice, and/or sustained experience with practitioners in one's field

5. Engages in efforts to obtain funding to support course and program development

7. Demonstrates leadership in accreditation and program approval efforts and activities

Potential evidence for a faculty member to present when demonstrating compliance with the above standards:

· Correspondence from colleagues who have participated on committees with you that have developed curriculum or conducted accreditation or program approval reviews

The standards for reappointment: The standards for tenure with strong evidence of potential that they will be met when the tenure decision is scheduled to be made.

*3a. Possesses a record of conducting and reporting empirical research in one's field-or-

4. Demonstrates knowledge about research design, data collection, data analysis, and reporting and interpreting results beyond one’s own research methodologies

7. Makes research contributions that reflect both collaboration and leadership over time

8. Has evolved as a researcher – sophistication and focus has progressed over time

9. Engages in research that can be used to mentor and create opportunities for doctoral students

10. Demonstrates leadership in mentoring colleagues, particularly junior faculty, in their efforts to generate new knowledge in their field

12. Possesses a sustained record of conducting and reporting empirical research in one’s field

15. Demonstrates leadership and mentoring in research at the national level, e.g., review panels, keynote presentations, membership on research panels

Potential evidence for a faculty member to present when demonstrating compliance with the above standards:

· *Selected products of one's research, e.g., juried presentations at professional conferences, publications in peer-reviewed journals, books, chapters, monographs, technical reports,

invited presentations, instructional/curricular materials, modules, tests, equipment, inventions, and conference proceedings

· *External evaluations and reviews of your work (for tenure/promotion reviews)

· * Publication list of manuscripts, research proposals, and other products of scholarship submitted for publication, funding, or dissemination

· Receipt of competitive grants or contracts for research from external and internal funding sources (including an assessment of the competition)

· Awards and other recognition for the quality of your research (including the text of those awards)

The standards for reappointment: The standards for tenure with strong evidence of potential that they will be met when the tenure decision is scheduled to be made.

*2. Possesses recognition by others of the quality of one’s synthesis and integration of knowledge

3. Disseminates knowledge and research at multiple levels, e.g., local, state, national, and international conferences

6. Develops new guidelines for research and practice through literature reviews and publications

7. Demonstrates leadership in mentoring colleagues, particularly junior faculty, in their efforts to integrate knowledge in their field

8. Conducts comprehensive reviews of the knowledge base in one's field, identification of critical themes, and recommendations for extending that knowledge base

9. Generates new theories and models grounded on the knowledge base in one's field

10. Possesses distinction in the quality of one's synthesis and integration of knowledge

11. Has a sustained record of disseminating research and knowledge at multiple levels, e.g., local, state, national, and international conferences

13. Mentors graduate students (masters and doctoral) in presenting research at conferences

Potential evidence for a faculty member to present when demonstrating compliance with the above standards:

· *Selected products of one's synthesis and integration of knowledge, e.g., juried presentations at professional conferences, publications in peer-reviewed journals, books, chapters, monographs, technical reports, invited presentations, instructional/curricular materials, modules, tests, equipment, inventions, and conference proceedings

· *Bibliographical list of your synthesis and integration of knowledge, e.g., juried presentations at professional conferences, publications in peer-reviewed journals, books, chapters, monographs, technical reports, invited presentations, instructional/curricular materials, modules, tests, equipment, inventions, and conference proceedings

· Receipt of competitive grants or contracts to synthesize and integrate knowledge (including an assessment of the competition)

· Reports of work in progress designed to synthesize and integrate the knowledge in your field

· Awards and other recognition for the quality of your synthesis and integration of knowledge (including the text of these awards)

Note: Although diverse products of service contributions are anticipated among candidates, it is expected that, over time, all candidates will demonstrate service in these domains: to profession, to practioners, and to the institution.

The standards for reappointment: The standards for tenure with strong evidence of potential that they will be met when the tenure decision is scheduled to be made.

*1. Is involved in professional organizations and associations in one's field, e..g., some reasonable combination of state, regional, national/international levels

2. Contributes to a professional organization or association that are focused and that draw upon one's professional expertise

4. Is recognized by others for the quality and impact of service to professional organizations and associations

5. Provides leadership in state or national professional organizations in one’s field, e.g., chair of conference, president of association, member of association board of directors

6. Provides leadership in state and national policy related to families, children, and youth

Potential evidence for a faculty member to present when demonstrating compliance with the above standards:

· *A description of srvice agenda to professional organizations and associations and of how that service builds on your professional expertise

· *Membership in professional organizations and associations at national, regional, and state levels

· Examples of involvement in professional organizations and associations that is sustained and focused and that draws upon one's professional expertise

· Correspondence from leaders in professional organizations and associations in one's field

The standards for reappointment: The standards for tenure with strong evidence of potential that they will be met when the tenure decision is scheduled to be made.

2. Makes substantial contributions to practitioners and community that are focused and that draw upon one's professional expertise

3. Possesses recognition by others of the quality and impact of one’s service to practitioners and community

4. Demonstrates leadership in addressing important societal needs of children, youth, and families

5. Demonstrates leadership in addressing the needs of practitioners in one’s field

6. Has recognition at the state and national level of one’s service to practitioners and community

7. Procures funding for projects to provide services to practitioners and community

Potential evidence for a faculty member to present when demonstrating compliance with the above standards:

· *A description of service agenda to practitioners and of how that service builds on your professional expertise

· Examples of involvement with practitioners in the field that is sustained and focused and that draws upon your professional expertise

The standards for reappointment: The standards for tenure with strong evidence of potential that they will be met when the tenure decision is scheduled to be made.

*1. Has involvement in the institution's faculty governance structure at program, department, College, or University levels

3. Has recognition of the quality and impact of one's service to the institution

4. Makes substantial contributions and leadership in planning committees and new initiatives

6. Has involvement in the institutions faculty governance structure at program, department, College, and University levels

7. Provides leadership to the institution as department chair, program coordinator, associate dean, or other university administrator

9. Demonstrates initiative in identifying needs and provides leadership in addressing those needs for the University at program, department, and College levels

Potential evidence for a faculty member to present when demonstrating compliance with the above standards:

· *List of membership on faculty committees at program, department, College, and University levels

· Leadership in professional development activities in the college and/or University, including involvement in faculty research seminars, teaching improvement initiatives, and the College’s peer observation process

· Description of involvement in student activities, organizations, and programs

One of the principles undergirding reappointment, promotion, and tenure reviews in the College of Education is that responsibility for making the case rests with the faculty member candidate. The vehicle for making this case is a dossier prepared by the candidate with the assistance of his or her department chair. As described below, some parts of the candidate's dossier are required; other parts are optional.

Regardless of its specific content, the candidate and his or her department chair are ultimately responsible for ensuring that the candidate's dossier of materials is organized and presented in a thorough and professional manner. At issue in the review process is the candidate's performance as a faculty member in the department, College, and University; therefore, only those materials that specifically bear on the candidate's qualifications, achievements, contributions, and prospects for the future should be included in the dossier. The most effective case for a recommendation to reappoint, promote, or confer permanent tenure is one based on information that is specific, verifiable, and placed in context. Rhetoric and assertion are ineffective without supporting documentation, and advocacy alone is less convincing than the clear presentation of specific, relevant information.

Within these general guidelines, the candidate is expected to prepare a well organized and clearly and professionally presented dossier that presents his or her case for reappointment, promotion, and/or tenure. Described below is the content of the expected dossier: A looseleaf notebook with dividers for six sections of required information and a seventh optional section of supplementary materials that a candidate may or may not choose to include. Unless otherwise indicated, responsibility for obtaining or preparing the various kinds of information for the dossier rests with the candidate.

The narrative statement provides the candidate with an opportunity to present an overview of how he or she is meeting the professorial role expectations of a faculty member in the College of Education, including both the broad expectations and the specific standards for teaching, research, and service (See Section Two). The narrative statement should not be a summary of one's curriculum vita, but rather a broad overview and integration of one's professional vision and accomplishments that provides a contextual framework for the balance of the dossier. At a minimum, the candidate should use the narrative statement to describe his or her professional philosophy, the interrelationships and relative priorities among teaching, research, and service in his or her professorial activities, and the goals and objectives that he or she would like to achieve during the next three to five years as a faculty member in the College of Education.

Listed below are examples of the kinds of information that the candidate may want to consider when preparing his or her narrative statement:

· The evolution of one's professional interests and priorities in teaching, research, and service

· An analysis of how one has interpreted and used student and peer evaluations to improve instruction

· The integration of one's professorial activities, including particularly the unifying themes in one's teaching, research, and service

· The evolution of one's research and scholarship in terms of focus, audience, quality of publication outlet, etc.

This narrative statement should be written in first person, and it should not exceed approximately 4,000 words (5-7 single-spaced pages).

II: The candidate's current vita (Required) (See Appendix A for recommended outline)

The vita should document all of the candidate's professional activities, including those prior to joining the UNC Charlotte faculty. It should include information about the candidate's educational background (baccalaureate through doctoral degrees, dates, institutions, majors and minors); professional experience in education (dates, employers, job responsibilities, etc.); professional licenses or certifications, publications and presentations (complete citations, including authorship and co-authorship and indications of whether the material is refereed, invited, or non-refereed); research and development projects (titles, content, funding sources, products, etc.); paid and unpaid professional consultations; editorial assignments; committee or leadership responsibilities in professional organizations and associations; and committee or leadership responsibilities in department, College, and University governance.

Throughout the vita, specific entries should be ordered consistently from most recent to least recent, and the most current APA style should be used to list publications, presentations, research projects, etc. In addition, presentations and publications with students should be listed separately from those done alone or with professional peers; and related activities or entries should be cross-referenced or presented together, e.g., reprints of articles in other journals, presentations subsequently published in conference proceedings or in refereed journals, or closely related articles or research reports based on the same data source.

III: Copies of all prior annual evaluation letters to the candidate since the last review and all prior reappointment, promotion, and tenure recommendations (Required)

(These materials will be provided for the notebook by the candidates’s department chair.)

· A list of the candidate's teaching assignments since his or her last review for reappointment, promotion, or tenure and copies of syllabi for each of the different courses taught by the candidate during the prior three years

· All student evaluations collected since the candidate's last review for reappointment, promotion, or tenure, including both quantitative and qualitative information (Provided for the notebook by the candidate's department chair)

· Peer observation reports (Provided for the notebook by the candidate's department chair)

· A recent survey of a sample of the candidate's advisees regarding the quality of academic advisement provided to students (Collected and provided for the notebook by the candidate's department chair)

V: Materials relevant to research (Required)tc \l2 "Section V: Materials relevant to research (Required)

· A description of one's efforts to find an appropriate balance between independent and collaborative research and scholarship, including an indication of the nature and degree of one's contributions to major collaborative research, presentations, and publications

· Copies of five examples of research publications, including items in press, with journal title pages as appropriate. The five research examples are to be selected by the candidates as representative of the candidate’s most significant work. Manuscripts submitted for publication and refereed or invited presentations may be included in the examples presented for review.

· For tenure and promotion reviews (but not reappointment reviews), three to five letters from external reviewers who have been asked to review selected publications or products of the candidate’s research and then, based on that review, assess both the quality of the research and its contributions to the candidate’s field of specialization. (Provided for the notebook by the candidate's department chair)

It is the responsibility of the candidate's department chair to obtain these assessments of the candidate's research. Working with the candidate, the chair will identify and select a small sample of the candidate's research products (articles, reports, monographs, book chapters, etc.) and three to five established individuals in the candidate's field of research who are in a position to assess objectively the quality of that work. All of the reviewers must be outside UNC Charlotte, none should be a close colleague or collaborator with the candidate, and the majority should be selected independently by the department chair in consultation with the Dean. When the chair solicits the external reviews, he or she will inform the candidate regarding the names of the reviewers, the materials sent to each, and the question(s) they have been asked to address.

This collection of external reviews of the candidate's research should be initiated by the department chair in late spring or summer of the year of review in order to ensure their timely receipt and use in the review process.

VI: Materials relevant to service (Required)tc \l2 "Section VI: Materials relevant to service (Required)

·A description of the candidate's agenda for service to the profession and to practitioners in his or her field

· Descriptions or products of the candidate's most significant service activities ( a maximum of five items)

· For tenure and promotion reviews (but not reappointment reviews), three to five letters from appropriate individuals who have in-depth knowledge of one or more of the candidate's service activities and who have been asked to assess the quality of that service (Provided for the notebook by the candidate's department chair)

It is the responsibility of the candidate's department chair to obtain these assessments of the candidate's service to the profession and to practitioners in his or her field. Working with the candidate, the chair will identify and select three to five appropriate individuals who have in-depth knowledge of one or more of the candidate's service activities and who are in a position to assess objectively the quality of service and contribution made by the candidate to his or her profession or to a specific group of practitioners in the field. Ideally, these reviewers should be knowledgeable of the candidate's work, but not collaborators or close colleagues. When the chair solicits the external reviews, he or she will inform the candidate regarding the names of the reviewers, any materials sent to them, and the question(s) they have been asked to address.

This collection of external reviews of the candidate's service should be initiated by the department chair in late spring or summer of the year of the review in order to ensure their timely receipt and use in the review process.

VII: A list of additional materials and documents included in a portable file if the candidate chooses to supplement the required notebook with other evidence of the quality of his or her professorial activities (Optional)tc \l2 "Section VII: A list of additional materials and documents included in a portable file if the candidate chooses to supplement the required notebook with other evidence of the quality of his or her professorial activities (Optional)

Described elsewhere in this document are the professorial role expectations of all faculty in the College of Education, including both broad expectations and specific standards relevant to three domains of scholarship: Teaching, research, and scholarship. Each set of standards for reappointment, tenure, and promotion is followed by a list of potential evidence that a faculty member can present to demonstrate that he or she has met the standards.

Some of this evidence is required of all candidates and should be included in the mandatory six-section notebook that constitutes the core document of each candidate's dossier. In addition to these six sections, however, candidates may also want to present additional evidence that supplements the notebook, documents assertions made in their narrative statement or elsewhere in the notebook, and further substantiates the quality of their professorial activities. If so, the additional materials should be clearly labeled, carefully cross-referenced to other materials in the notebook and to the standards themselves, and well organized in a portable file. In addition, in Section VII of the notebook, the candidate should provide a list of all of the additional materials and documents included in the portable file.

Whereas the looseleaf notebook described above is a required part of the candidate's dossier for reappointment, promotion, and tenure review, any additional materials are entirely optional. The complete dossier, including the notebook and any additional materials, will be reviewed by the candidate's department review committee and department chair, the College Review Committee, and the Dean. As a general rule, all sections of the notebook, excluding copies of publications and presentations in Section V, will be forwarded to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. In addition, the Provost may subsequently request other materials in the candidate's dossier.

The Sequence of Steps for Conducting Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Reviews

Listed below is the sequence of steps or activities for conducting reappointment, promotion, and tenure reviews in the College of Education. These steps and related activities are intended to be consistent with those described in the University's Tenure Policies, Regulations, and Procedures (TPRP-04). In the event of a conflict between this document and the TPRP-04 on any issue, the terms of the TPRP-04 shall have precedence.

1. Prior to May 1 of an academic year, the Dean will meet with department chairs in the College to identify (a) those faculty who are subject by contract to reappointment, promotion and/or tenure reviews during that year and (b) any other faculty who have requested early tenure and/or early promotion reviews during that year. A second purpose of the meeting will be to review the University, College, and department criteria, procedures, and specific deadlines for conducting these reviews.

2. By May 1, the Dean will communicate in writing with each faculty member who is either subject by contract to a review during the year or has requested one and will include the review timeline for the year. Copies of this correspondence will also be sent to the faculty member's department chair.

3. By May 15, each department chair in the College will meet with his or her faculty members who will be reviewed that year to (a) go over the departmental and College criteria, procedures, and timelines, (b) discuss preparation of each faculty member's dossier, and (c) identify the materials and potential reviewers who will be asked by the department chair to assess the quality and contributions of the faculty member's research and service.

4. Consistent with University policies and timelines for required reviews, tenured faculty who are scheduled for a promotion review, but who opt to postpone the review, are expected to notify their department chair in writing of that decision prior to September 1 and to send a copy of this memorandum or letter to the Dean.

5. One of the principles undergirding reappointment, promotion, and tenure reviews in the College of Education is that responsibility for making the case rests with the faculty member candidate. The vehicle for making this case is a dossier prepared by the candidate. The dossier consists of a required looseleaf notebook of specified materials, some of which are supplied by the candidate's department chair, and some of which are optional that the candidate may or may not choose to include (See Section Three for a description of the dossier). By the date specified in the year's review timeline, the candidate will present a single copy of a complete dossier to his or her department chair, who will then add the materials which are to be provided by the Chair.

6. Following examination of the dossier to ensure its completeness, including all sections in the required notebook and any optional materials, the department chair will put the dossier in a secure place for both his or her own review and for review by the candidate's department review committee (DRC). The permanently tenured senior faculty members in the department who are at or above the rank for which a candidate is under consideration may also review the candidate’s dossier and provide advice to the DRC. These two reviews will be guided by both the department's established criteria and procedures and the professorial role expectations of all faculty members in the College of Education.

7. By the date specified in the year's review timeline, the DRC will submit its written recommendation to the department chair regarding reappointment, promotion and/or tenure of the candidate.

8. By the date specified in the year's review timeline, the department chair, after consulting with the assembled DRC at a meeting at which a majority of its members are present, will complete his or her recommendation regarding reappointment, promotion and/or tenure of the candidate.

If the department chair's recommendation is positive, he or she will forward the candidate's dossier to the Dean, along with the chair's recommendation and that of the DRC placed appropriately in the candidate's looseleaf notebook. The chair will also simultaneously forward copies of the two recommendations to the candidate. Chairs will also complete and include the following forms for the candidate’s dossier:

AA Form 20: Reappointment, Promotion and/or Conferral of Permanent Tenure Record of Action

AA Form 27: Affirmative Action Memorandum Signed by the department chair as Unit Affirmative Action Officer

On the other hand, if the department chair decides not to recommend reappointment, promotion, or tenure of the candidate under review mandated by Section III.C of the TPRP-04, the chair will, notify the candidate of that decision and the rationale of that decision. The candidate may request further review of the decision as provided in Section IV D3 of that document.

9. Assuming a positive recommendation from the department chair, the Dean will put the dossier in a secure place for both his or her own review and for review by the College Review Committee (CRC). These two reviews will be guided by both the established criteria and procedures of the candidate's department and the professorial role expectations of all faculty members in the College of Education.

10. By the date specified in the year's review timeline, the CRC will submit its written recommendation to the Dean regarding reappointment, promotion and/or tenure of the candidate. During this review process, the CRC will follow these specific procedures:

a. Each member of the CRC will independently and carefully review the dossier of the candidate and evaluate his or her performance as a faculty member in the College.

b. Following that independent review and evaluation, the members of the CRC will meet to discuss the candidate's dossier and his or her case for reappointment, promotion and/or tenure. The goal of these discussions will be for CRC members to reach a consensus in their evaluation of the candidate prior to taking a final vote on a recommendation for reappointment, promotion and/or tenure. Straw votes may be taken at any time during these discussions in order to assess the thinking of CRC members and identify areas requiring more information or deliberation.

c. At any point it deems necessary, and in any of several ways, the CRC through its chair may seek clarification of information in the candidate's dossier or any additional information it feels is essential to a thorough and fair review and evaluation of the candidate's performance:

(1) The CRC may invite the candidate's department chair to meet with it to answer questions, clarify information, or provide additional information;

(2) The CRC may invite the candidate's DRC to meet with it to answer questions, clarify information, or provide additional information; or

(3) The CRC may invite the candidate to respond to questions, clarify information, or provide additional information either in writing or during a special meeting with the CRC or both.

d. Similarly, the candidate may request an opportunity to meet with the CRC to clarify or amplify on information in his or her dossier.

e. The CRC shall document in writing any additional information it obtains pursuant to Paragraphs 10(c) or 10(d) above and shall add any such documentation to the candidate’s review file.

f. After complete and thorough review and discussion of the candidate's dossier and his or her performance as a faculty member in the College, particularly in the light of the professorial role expectations of all faculty in the College, the full membership of the CRC will meet to vote on the CRC’s recommendation regarding reappointment, promotion and/or tenure of the candidate. The question for vote will be, "Do you support the reappointment, promotion and/or tenure [as appropriate] of the candidate?" Each CRC member will vote "Yes," "No," or "Abstain," and the numerical results will be reported by the chair of the CRC to its members.

g. With the assistance of other CRC members in developing preliminary drafts, the chair of the CRC will prepare a written evaluative summary of the candidate's dossier, a summary of both the substance and tone of the CRC’s discussions, the specific recommendation of the CRC regarding reappointment, promotion and/or tenure, and the numerical results of the CRC’s vote. The report will not identify specific remarks from individual CRC members. Drafts of the report will be reviewed and modified by the members during CRC meetings.

h. Prior to preparing the final draft of its recommendation, the CRC will meet with the Dean to share the content and rationale of its recommendation and to ensure that it has considered all appropriate and necessary information prior to making its recommendation.

i. Following this meeting with the Dean, the CRC will prepare the final draft of its recommendation. Each member of the CRC will sign that final draft, indicating thereby that the report and recommendation accurately reflect the discussion of the CRC, but without indicating whether the individual is or is not in agreement with the recommendation concerning reappointment, promotion and/or tenure. The last line prior to the lines for CRC members' signatures will read: "The information contained in this report accurately reflects the deliberations of the College Review Committee and my participation in them, and it accurately reports the recommendation of the committee to the Dean of the College."

j. The CRC’s report will be submitted to the Dean by the date specified in the year's review timeline.

11. Following receipt of the CRC’s recommendation and his or her independent review of the candidate's dossier, the Dean will prepare a draft of his or her recommendation regarding reappointment, promotion and/or tenure. In the process of doing so, he or she may request clarification of information in the dossier or additional information from the candidate, his or her DRC or department chair, the CRC, or anyone else deemed relevant to the review process, e.g., additional external reviewers. The Dean shall document in writing any additional information it obtains pursuant to this Paragraph and shall add any such documentation to the candidate’s review file. Prior to preparing the final draft of his or her recommendation, the Dean will meet with the CRC to share that recommendation and the rationale for it.

12. By the date specified in the year's review timeline, the Dean will complete his or her recommendation regarding reappointment, promotion and/or tenure of the candidate.

If the Dean's recommendation is positive, the Dean will forward the relevant sections of the candidate's dossier (see page 16) to the Provost, along with the Dean's recommendation and that of the CRC. The Dean will also simultaneously forward copies of the two recommendations to the candidate.

On the other hand, if the Dean decides not to recommend reappointment, promotion, or tenure of the candidate under review mandated by Section III.C of the TPRP-04, the Dean will notify the candidate of that decision, along with the rationale for that decision. The candidate may request further review of the decision as provided in Section IV D of that document.

13. Upon receipt of the Dean's recommendation and accompanying materials, the Provost will conduct his or her own independent review. If the Provost makes a positive recommendation, the Provost will forward it to the Chancellor. If the Chancellor concurs in the recommendation, the Chancellor will forward the recommendation to the Boar of Turstees for final approval.

On the other hand, if the Provost decides not to reappoint, promote, or confer permanent tenure on a faculty member after having received a positive recommendation from the Dean, the Provost shall notify the candidate of that decision, along with the rationale for that decision. The Provost’s negative decision is a final decision. A faculty member who contends that decision was based on impermissible grounds or material procedural irregularities may seek a hearing on that contention in accordance with the procedures of Section V of the TPRP-04.

Likewise, if the Chancellor decides not to reappoint, promote, or confer permanent tenure on a faculty member after having received a positive recommendation from the Provost, the Chancellor shall notify the candidate of that decision, along with the rationale for that decision. The Chancellor’s negative decision is a final decision. A faculty member who contends that decision was based on impermissible grounds or material procedural irregularities may seek a hearing on that contention in accordance with the procedures of Section V of the TPRP-04.

14. A faculty member who contends that a negative decision was based on impermissible grounds or material procedural irregularities at any point in the review process may seek a hearing on that contention in accordance with procedures in Section 7 of the TPRP-04.

15. When the review process is complete, the candidate’s dossier and all optional supplemental materials will be returned to the candidate through his or her department chair.

16. Finally, throughout the review process, those involved will demonstrate appropriate standards of ethical, professional, and confidential behavior:

a. Closed sessions. All deliberations involving DRC, the CRC, department chairs, and the Dean that deal with reappointment, promotion, or tenure of a particular faculty member will be held in closed session, with only those present who are necessary to the deliberations.

b. Confidentiality. All documents submitted or created in connection with the process of review for reappointment, promotion, or tenure of a particular faculty member, and the information contained therein, will be treated as confidential personnel information. Such confidential records and information will not be disclosed to or discussed with any person except (1) those persons participating in the review as provided in these policies, (2) those persons required or permitted to be consulted in accord with the requirements of department, College, or University policies, or (3) those persons permitted access to such documents by law.

Each department shall have a DRC. The assembled DRC shall provide recommendations to its Department Chair on reappointment, promotion, and tenure.

The DRC shall have at least three members from within the department, all of whom must be full-time and have permanent tenure. Only full-time, permanently tenured faculty members have the right to vote. Faculty members without permanent tenure who hold professorial rank may be elected to serve as either participating, nonvoting members or as non-participating nonvoting observers. Permanently tenured faculty members from other departments may be selected as voting members if necessary to constitute the DRC. The DRC shall elect its chair.

Members of the DRC will serve on staggered terms so that there is continuity from one year to the next. In each annual election of DRC members, one member will be elected for a two year term while the second member will be elected for a one year term. The third member of the committee will be the continuing member in the second year of service.

The assembled CRC shall provide recommendations to the Dean on reappointment, promotion, and tenure.

The CRC shall be selected from full-time, permanently tenured faculty of the College. Faculty members without permanent tenure who hold professorial rank may be elected to serve as either participating, nonvoting members or as non-participating nonvoting observers. Permanently tenured faculty members from other colleges may be selected as voting members if necessary to constitute the CRC. The CRC shall elect its chair.

The CRC shall be composed of six voting members. Each of the five academic departments of the College shall elect one member. The remaining one (1) member of the Committee shall be elected on an at-large basis by the full-time, tenure track faculty of the College.

(a) Each Department shall elect its CRC representative and shall submit the name of its elected representative to the Dean by April 15 of each year. The Dean’s Office will prepare a ballot of nomination for the at-large member containing the names of all faculty eligible for nomination to the CRC. The ballot will be submitted to all full-time, tenure track faculty of the College. The at-large member shall be elected by a majority of votes cast. If no candidate receives a majority vote on the first ballot, a second ballot will be submitted with the top two vote-getters listed as candidates.

Faculty members who are not eligible to serve on the CRC are: (1) Current members of DRCs; (2) Department Chairs; and (3) persons being reviewed for reappointment, promotion, and/or tenure, and their spouses.

CRC members elected by Departments shall serve two-year terms. These terms shall be staggered so that at least two continuing members shall serve on each College Review Committee. The at-large member shall serve a one-year term.

Publications [list according to style of most recent APA Publications Manual; list most recent publications first in each category]

Curriculum Guides, Monographs, Technical Reports, Training Manuals, Local Publications

[Works in progress should be included as a final category, especially at Reappointment]

Conference Presentations (# = refereed presentations) [list according to style of most recent APA Publications Manual; list most recent presentation first}

^*When conducting their independent reviews, the College Review Committee and the Dean will use the professorial role expectations described in Section Two of this document as the criteria for evaluation. They will review the candidate’s complete dossier in terms of both the broad expectations of a faculty member and the specific standards for teaching, research, and service. Then, based on their assessment of the evidence presented and available to them, the committee and theDean will independently consider the total profile presented by each candidate and will make independent holistic judgments about his or her performance and potential as a faculty member in the College.