FH 2.8.2 Teaching Track Promotion Policies and Procedures
Effective Date Mar 13, 2019
2.8.2.1. Criteria for Promotion in Teaching Track
2.8.2.1.1 University-Level Criteria
Teaching track faculty are required to maintain thresholds of performances in the areas of teaching and service as defined by college-level criteria. Scholarship is strongly encouraged for promotion considerations. Appropriate levels of engagement in each area will be planned and agreed on in advance in order to ensure for appropriate professional development and work/life balance.
2.8.2.1.1.1 Teaching
Effective teaching, among other things, consists of clearly communicating special knowledge and expertise based on an understanding of curricular objectives and the learner’s needs and abilities. Further, effective teaching entails advising and mentoring related to areas such as research projects, capstone projects, and thesis advising, selecting and using appropriate instructional methods and materials, which lead to learning, and providing fair and useful evaluations of the quality of the learner’s work.
2.8.2.1.1.2 Service
Teaching track faculty members are expected to provide some forms of service to the university, their college, their academic unit, their profession, and in some instances, the community at large.
2.8.2.1.1.3 Scholarship
Teaching track faculty are expected to engage in disciplinary, interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary scholarship as measured by professional standards of documentation, peer review and dissemination. Colleges are responsible for defining what constitutes scholarship for teaching track faculty, as well as defining what constitutes documentation, peer review and dissemination for this track.
2.8.2.1.2 College-Level Criteria
Each college will develop and publish its own specific teaching, scholarship and service criteria for teaching-track promotion. Criteria will be developed and/or revised, and expectations defined, with input from faculty and endorsement by the Faculty Senate. The chief academic officer and the president of the university will have final approval of all college-level criteria for promotion in the teaching track.
2.8.2.1.3 Time in Rank
Assistant and associate faculty members must serve a minimum of five (5) full years in rank before beginning the promotion process. The process will begin in the sixth year of appointment at the lower rank. Exceptions may be granted with permission from the chief academic officer. Exceptions include time served at prior institutions or outstanding performance in all areas of promotion criteria.
2.8.2.2. Promotion Process
2.8.2.2.1 Records Storage
All records associated with annual faculty reviews, evaluations and promotions for teaching track faculty will be kept on file in the office of the college dean of the respective college. Access to files will be governed by policy (to be developed).
2.8.2.2.1.1 Confidentiality
To ensure candidness and accuracy, all letters and recommendations for or against awarding of promotion will remain confidential. Accessibility to specific documents associated with promotion are specified in tables found in Section 2.8.2.3.7.
2.8.2.2.1.2 Summary of Letters and Recommendations
At the request of the faculty member, the chief academic officer will summarize the content of all letters of review and recommendations while maintaining confidentiality.
2.8.2.2.2 Annual Faculty Reviews
2.8.2.2.2.1 Annual Faculty Reviews
Annual faculty reviews are required to monitor progress toward promotion to associate and full professor, as well as for determining contractual appointment renewals. They will be conducted by the academic unit head and must conclude with a statement that addresses whether the faculty member is making satisfactory or unsatisfactory progress toward promotion or meeting minimum work expectations. The faculty member, the academic unit head and the college dean must sign annual review documents. By signing the form, the faculty member is not expressing agreement with the views that it represents but rather confirming that he/she received the document.
2.8.2.2.2.1.1 Rating Categories
Specific criteria for each rating category will be determined by academic program, unit and/or college, and must be established and approved by faculty, academic unit heads and deans.
2.8.2.2.2.1.1.1 Exceeds Expectations
This category is awarded to faculty members whose performance reflects a level of accomplishment that exceeds the expected level.
2.8.2.2.2.1.1.2 Satisfactory
This category is awarded to faculty members whose performance reflects the expected level of accomplishment.
2.8.2.2.2.1.1.3 Needs Improvement
This category is awarded to faculty members whose performance reflects a level of accomplishment that needs improvement. Faculty receiving ratings in this category must be issued work plans for improvement throughout the next academic year.
2.8.2.2.2.1.1.4 Unsatisfactory
This category is awarded to faculty members whose performance reflects a level of accomplishment well below the expected level. This is the sole category that constitutes unsatisfactory progress. Faculty receiving ratings in this category must be issued work plans for improvement during the following academic year.
2.8.2.2.2.1.2 Unsatisfactory Progress on Annual Reviews
Unsatisfactory progress reported on annual reviews prior to reappointment of a new contract may result in non-reappointment to the teaching track.
2.8.2.2.3 Promotion Review and Recommendation
Academic unit heads, college-level promotion committees, deans and the University Teaching-Track Promotion Committee (UTPC; see Section 2.8.2.3.5) will evaluate teaching track faculty for promotion to associate or full professor. After reviewing all required documentation, the UTPC will provide recommendations to the chief academic officer on candidates for promotion. The chief academic officer and president will review the UTPC’s recommendations and make the final decision on promotion.
2.8.2.2.3.1 Documentation
Guidelines for the contents of the promotion dossier are given in the faculty guideline “Promotion and Tenure Dossier Format” (FH Appendix 1). All candidates will follow these guidelines regardless of their college.
2.8.2.2.3.2 Beginning the Process
The academic unit heads and teaching track faculty members (herein, called candidates) will be advised of the beginning of the promotion review process one year before candidates are to be considered for promotion. Academic unit heads provide initial recommendations to candidates before the candidates submit their letters of intent to enter the promotion process and their curricula vitae to the college promotion committees.
2.8.2.2.3.3 College-Level Review and Committee
College promotion committees (CPCs) are responsible for communicating deadlines and points of contact with their colleges’ candidates, providing preliminary feedback to candidates after reviewing their letters of intent and curricula vitae, providing feedback to candidates regarding suggested dossier revisions, requesting and receiving letters of recommendation from outside reviewers, and providing recommendations to academic unit heads and deans.
2.8.2.2.3.3.1 Membership
Membership numbers and participants on CPCs will be determined by college but must include promoted faculty in the teaching track.
2.8.2.2.3.3.2 Input from Teaching Track Faculty in Academic Program
It is the responsibility of Florida Tech teaching track faculty to participate in the promotion process. The CPCs will solicit confidential letters from Florida Tech teaching track faculty members in the candidate’s program. Letters should express clear recommendations for or against promotion accompanied with supporting explanations. If letters are not received in a timely manner, the CPC will attempt to obtain input from faculty who did not respond.
2.8.2.2.3.3.3 Letters of Recommendation from Outside Reviewers
Letters of recommendation are also required from reviewers outside of Florida Tech (see definition of outside reviewers in FH Appendix 1). Candidates and academic unit heads should suggest potential reviewers to the CPCs. The CPCs are responsible for writing all requests for evaluations and receiving the external letters; the committee chair may write the requests or distribute the responsibility among committee members. If the required number of recommendation letters (as stated in FH Appendix 1) has not been received, the CPC is responsible for informing the candidate and requesting letters from additional outside reviewers.
Candidates’ dossiers cannot be forwarded to academic unit heads or deans until all letters from outside reviewers are included.
2.8.2.2.3.4 Review Letters from Academic Unit Heads and Deans
The academic unit head will have monitored a candidate’s performance during the period preceding promotion via annual performance evaluations and will provide a written assessment of the candidate’s progress toward promotion based upon those evaluations. The written assessment will be submitted to the CPC and included in the dossier before submission to the UPC.
Written reviews by deans will be included in dossiers before submission to the chief academic officer and review by the UPC. Full dossiers of all candidates should be submitted electronically by the second Monday in January for the UPC’s review in the spring.
2.8.2.2.3.5 University Teaching-Track Promotion Committee (UTPC)
2.8.2.2.3.5.1 Membership
The UTPC is composed as described in the faculty policy “Standing Committees of the Academic Faculty” (FH 1.5).
2.8.2.2.3.5.2 Process
There will be four meetings of the UTPC during the spring semester: (1) an organizational meeting, (2) a review meeting after dossiers have been initially evaluated, (3) a voting meeting, and (4) a post-review meeting. All voting members of the UTPC are required to evaluate all complete dossiers with the appropriate colleges’ promotion and tenure guidelines during a three-week review period.
2.8.2.2.3.5.2.1 Voting Meeting
In addition to the members of the UTPC, attendance at the voting meeting will normally include the chief academic officer and/or his/her representative. The committee will engage in a thorough discussion of the candidates’ qualifications as they relate to the colleges’ promotion and tenure guidelines. Ballots consisting of a list of the candidates’ names and boxes for yes, no and abstain votes will be prepared and provided by the chief academic officer. Negative votes must have written justification included in the allotted space on the ballot. The chief academic officer will collect the ballots after all candidates have been considered. The chair of the UPC will call out the votes to the committee members and at least two members will record the votes. Results will be tabulated at the meeting and made known to the members of the UTPC. The results and all UTPC deliberations are to be treated with complete confidentiality.
Compilations of the committee’s anonymous comments will be sent to the deans of candidates who were not recommended for promotion and tenure.
2.8.2.2.3.6 Timeline for Teach-Track Promotion Process
| Date | Action |
|---|---|
| January (of preceeding academic year) | Candidates discuss their intent to enter the promotion process with academic unit heads. Academic unit heads provide initial recommendations to the candidates. |
| April (of preceeding academic year) | Candidates submit letters of intent to enter the promotion process and curricula vitae to the CPCs. Academic unit heads share written assessments with CPCs. |
| May | CPCs provide preliminary feedback to candidates. |
| August | Candidates electronically submit preliminary dossiers in PDF format and lists of potential outside reviewers to CPCs. Academic unit heads submit lists of additional potential outside reviewers to CPCs. |
| September-October |
|
| November | Candidates electronically submit final dossiers in PDF format to CPCs. CPCs add letters from outside reviewers and the written assessment from academic unit heads to the dossiers. CPTCs meet and formulate recommendations. |
| December | CPCs submit their recommendations and dossiers to the deans. Written reviews by deans will be added to the dossiers. |
| Early January |
|
| Late January to mid-February | The UTPC reviews dossiers and holds a second meeting for an initial review of candidates. |
| Mid-February to early March | The UTPC meets to discuss candidates, vote and submit recommendations to the chief academic officer. The chief academic officer and president review recommendations and make the final decision on promotion, which are communicated to the deans. |
| By March 15 | Candidates are sent official written notifications from the chief academic officer, and the deans of candidates who were not recommended for promotion are sent compilations of the committee’s anonymous comments. |
| April | The UTPC holds a post-review meeting. The chief academic officer notifies all members of the UTPC of the final decision either by letter or at the post-review meeting. |
2.8.2.2.3.7 Allowable Access to Documentation for Teaching-Track Promotion Review
| Documentation | Candidate | Academic Unit Teaching-Track Faculty | Academic Unit Head | CPC | Dean | UTPC | Chief Academic Officer |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Candidate's Dossier | - | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Candidate's Annual Review | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Academic Unit Tenured Faculty Letters | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Academic Unit Head Recommendation | No | No | - | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| College Promotion Committee (CPC) Recommendation | No | No | Yes | - | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Letters from Outside Reviewers | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| College Dean Recommendation | No | No | No | No | - | Yes | Yes |
| University Teaching-Track Promotion Committee (UTPC) Recommendation | No | No | No | No | Yes | - | Yes |
| Chief Academic Officer Evaluation | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | - |
2.8.2.2.4. Disputes Between Voting Entities
If disputes about a candidate’s viability arise between the dean and the UTPC, the chief academic officer will convene a meeting of the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee (AFTC). The AFTC will review all available documentation along with college-specific teaching-track promotion criteria and advise the chief academic officer on a final decision. The AFTC will relate its full findings in writing to the chief academic officer.
2.8.2.2.5 Granting or Denial of Teaching-Track Promotion
Candidates will be sent official written notifications from the chief academic officer of the final promotion decision by March 15. If promotion is denied, the written notification will provide specific reasons, the UTPC vote, the AFTC vote, if involved, and the recommendations from the academic unit head and dean.
If promotion is granted, it becomes effective on the first day of the following appointment year. If denied, the candidate may be eligible to remain employed at lower rank.
2.8.2.2.6 Appeal of Denial of Promotion
The Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee (AFTC), as an impartial entity, will hear appeal cases related to denial of promotion. A faculty member denied promotion must appeal the decision within five (5) business days of receiving written notification from the chief academic officer.
2.8.2.2.6.1 Length of Time
The faculty member’s request for an appeal initiates the committee’s review period that will conclude within ten (10) business days during the academic year.
2.8.2.2.6.2 Process
Upon request, the UTPC will forward all information about its review to the AFTC within three (3) business days. The AFTC will share documents with the faculty member under review as appropriate while maintaining confidentiality.
The AFTC can request supporting documentation from the college dean and the faculty member under review to be received within three (3) business days of the request. The AFTC will review the faculty member’s performance and consider all relevant evidence, which includes individual discussions with the dean and the faculty member under review. The faculty member may choose an advocate to be present when meeting with the AFTC. The AFTC may consult with additional faculty or administrators as necessary. Written summaries of all discussions will be recorded and stored in the respective office of the college dean.
2.8.2.2.6.2.1 Appeal Outcomes
The AFTC will vote to choose one of the following outcomes:
(1) The faculty member meets expected college-level criteria for promotion.
(2) The faculty member does not meet college-level criteria for promotion.
The AFTC will prepare a written summary of its recommendation while maintaining confidentiality of individual members and forward it to the faculty member, academic unit head, college dean, and chief academic officer.
2.8.2.2.6.3 Final Decision on Appeal
Upon receiving a recommendation from the AFTC, the chief academic officer and president will make a final decision about promotion. The chief academic officer and president may consult with faculty and/or administrators in order to make a final decision on the case.