Policies

D. Procedures for Promotion to Professor

D. Procedures for Promotion to Professor

If a candidate is considered for Promotion, then that evaluation by the Faculty Personnel Committee will substitute for the five-year post-tenure review and reset the candidate’s five-year cycle. If the candidate for promotion is a current Department Chair, then the VPAA/Dean of the Faculty, in consultation with the candidate, will appoint a different tenured faculty member to take the role of Department Chair for the evaluation

  1. By Apr 1: The candidate submits a slate of four names to the VPAA/Dean of the Faculty of tenured faculty members (not serving on the Faculty Personnel Committee the following academic year) outside the candidate’s department willing to serve as a second evaluator of the candidate.

    Eligible faculty who agree to be added to the slate of second evaluators acknowledge that they are able to conduct an evaluation of the candidate free of bias and based on evidence presented in the file.

    Tenured faculty outside of the candidate’s department who will be on leave (sabbatical, medical, family, or other) or teaching off campus during the semester of the promotion classroom visits and/or evaluation file review and letter due date are not eligible to serve and therefore should not be included in the slate. If the slate contains ineligible names, the candidate will submit a list of four eligible candidates within seven calendar days of being contacted by the VPAA.

  2. By May 1: The VPAA/Dean of the Faculty appoints one of the eligible nominated faculty members to serve as a second evaluator of the candidate.
  3. By Oct 1: The candidate submits a complete portfolio addressing the specific criteria for Promotion in the areas of teaching, professional growth and development, and institutional service and leadership.
  4. The Department Chair makes at least two classroom observations during the fall semester. The second evaluator makes at least one classroom observation during the fall semester.
  5. The evaluation file includes no documentation from previous evaluations or reviews.
  6. The Department Chair meets with students currently enrolled at Central College who have taken or are taking courses from the candidate to discuss the candidate’s teaching effectiveness.
  7. The Department Chair invites all tenured members of the department who are not on leave to discuss the candidate’s performance and promotion recommendation, based on the evaluation file. Tenured members of the department have access to the same information in the candidate’s evaluation file that is available to the Department Chair and second evaluator.
  8. By Dec 1: The Department Chair submits a letter to the VPAA/Dean of the Faculty evaluating the candidate’s performance in teaching, professional growth and development, and institutional service and leadership. The letter includes:

a.  Specific reports of classroom observations.

b.  A summary of the discussion with students.

c.  A summary of the discussion with tenured members of the department. This section of

the letter is to be approved by the tenured members of the department who participated in the discussion.

d.  An explicit statement either recommending promotion or not recommending promotion.

The full letter is shared with tenured members of the department who participated in the discussion. The end of the letter includes a statement to be signed by those individuals acknowledging agreement with the summary of their discussion. Prior to submitting the letter, the Department Chair meets with the candidate after sharing an unsigned copy of the letter in order to allow the candidate to identify any factual errors for the Department Chair to correct.

9.  By Dec 1: The second evaluator submits a letter to the VPAA/Dean of the Faculty evaluating the candidate’s performance in teaching, professional growth and development, and institutional service and leadership. The letter is based on the candidate’s evaluation file and includes:

a.  Specific reports of classroom observations.

b.  An explicit statement either recommending promotion or not recommending promotion.

Prior to submitting the letter, the second evaluator meets with the candidate after sharing an unsigned copy of the letter in order to allow the candidate to identify any factual errors for the second evaluator to correct.

 

10.  The Faculty Personnel Committee conducts a promotion evaluation during the spring semester.  The committee discusses the evaluation file as a group. The VPAA/Dean of the Faculty is present to ask and answer questions and to provide an institutional perspective, but does not make a recommendation based on performance criteria at this time.

11.  The members of the Faculty Personnel Committee vote using secret ballot on a recommendation to the VPAA/Dean of the Faculty, either recommending promotion or not recommending promotion. The VPAA/Dean of the Faculty does not participate in this vote.

12.  By Apr 1: The Faculty Personnel Committee submits a written recommendation to the VPAA/Dean of the Faculty supported by the vote and evidence from the candidate’s evaluation file in the areas of teaching, professional growth and development, and institutional service and leadership. A record of the vote is included in this letter.

13.  The VPAA/Dean of the Faculty presents his or her recommendation to the President, along with the results of the committee vote. The VPAA/Dean of the Faculty meets with the Faculty Personnel Committee to convey whether or not the committee’s recommendation will be supported.

14.  The VPAA/Dean of the Faculty meets with the candidate to convey the outcome of the evaluation and the right to appeal.

15.  Candidates for promotion are presented to the Board of Trustees at their spring meeting.