Non-tenure Track Promotion – Albright College

Non-tenure Track Promotion

V.  Criteria and Procedures for Promotion – Instructor, Lecturer, and Artist in Residence

A.   Criteria for Non-tenure Track Promotion 

  1. Eligibility  Only faculty members who meet the criteria outlined in Section III.B of this Handbook are eligible for promotion to senior ranks.
  2. Promotion File  All evaluations of faculty members applying for renewal of a probationary appointment, for tenure or for promotion, and all recommendations of the President and all decisions of the Board of Trustees with respect to such applications shall be based solely upon information properly included in the applicant’s promotion file at the time the evaluation begins.  However, if a faculty member does something of consequence either to his or her benefit or detriment after the beginning of the evaluation but before the final promotion decision, written documentation of such action may be considered by the ACRT, the Chief Academic Officer, the President and the Board of Trustees, with the knowledge of the candidate and department chair.  The candidate may submit a response within one week of being apprised of the new material.  This response shall be included in the file.No information regarding a faculty member applying for tenure or promotion shall be considered by the ACRT, the Chief Academic Officer, the President or the Board of Trustees, and no recommendation or decision regarding such application, shall be justified or justifiable by reference to any evidence not properly included in the candidate’s rank and tenure file and directly relevant to the candidate’s a) merit as a teacher, as a scholar or other professional, or b) to the candidate’s service to the College community.
  3. Criteria   All applicants shall be judged with respect, and only with respect, to the following three categories of performancea) teaching excellence, b) scholarship, creative achievement,  and professional activity, and c) service to the College community and only as such categories are defined and the procedures set forth in Sections IV.B.5.IV.B.6.IV.B.7., and IV.C. of the Handbook.  Faculty members must strike a balance between scholarship and service (see secton V.A.5 and V.A.6) to the College according to her/his interests and abilities and, while both are important to the College, neither should be done at the expense of teaching excellence nor can either serve as a substitute for teaching excellence.
  4. Teaching  The single most important criterion and a necessary requisite, for the granting of tenure and/or promotion is demonstrated teaching excellence.  Teaching evaluations shall be based upon the assessment of: (a) the written evaluations of the applicant’s teaching submitted by the applicant’s Department Chair and peers (such evaluations shall be based upon, and shall refer with specificity to, classroom visitations); (b) all course syllabi and assignments; and c) all student teaching evaluations.  The candidate faculty member is encouraged to submit any additional evidence of teaching excellence that he or she wishes.  In judging the extent to which an applicant has achieved “teaching excellence” the ACRT and all others participating in the review of an application for promotion shall apply only the following standards outlined in section IV.B.4 as for Professor Ranks.
  5. Scholarship, Creative Achievement, and Professional Activity
    Scholarship as a criterion for non-tenure track promotion is encouraged, but requirements vary by department. Productive engagement is expected for promotion, but the scope and level of resources available to faculty also are to be considered along with the departmental expectations. Because these promotions are not associated with tenure, nor promotion to Associate Professor, this material will not be evaluated by external reviewers.
  6. Service to the College Community
    Involvement in the life of the College is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for promotion.  The College recognizes committee membership and positions, academic advising and counseling of students, participating in College activities, sponsoring speakers or other public events that enrich the intellectual life of the campus, and serving community groups as a recognized representative of the College and thereby enhancing the public image of the college.

B.   Procedures for Consideration for Tenure and Promotion

  1. Initiation of Consideration  The process for promotion is initiated by the Chief Academic Officer, in consultation with ACRT, by sending a letter to the eligible faculty candidate, according to the timeline below.
  2. Timing of Evaluations
    1. A non-tenure track faculty may request a progress review (similar to the 2 and 4yr reviews) by the ACRT prior to application for promotion, by no more than once every two years.
    2. Evaluation for promotion by ACRT is initiated by the faculty member after notification of eligibility by the Chief Academic Officer and follows the timeline outlined below in section V.10.
  3. Chief Academic Officer Responsible for Administrative Work  The Chief Academic Officer is responsible for the administrative work, including the communications of the ACRT.  All forms for evaluation and directions for their implementation, with the exception of student evaluations, shall be made available through the office of the Chief Academic Officer.
  4. Except for their reasons for promotion, the discussions of the ACRT shall be confidential. Only the conclusions of the deliberations and a detailed rationale for recommendation or denial shall be made available.
  5. Creation and Closing of Rank and Tenure File  When a faculty member is being considered for promotion, the ACRT establishes a candidate Promotion File to be maintained in the Academic Affairs Office.  The candidate’s Promotion File is closed on the day following the second Friday in February and no further information is added after that date without the unanimous approval of the candidate, the department chair, the ACRT chair and the Chief Academic Officer.
  6. The Promotion File must contain the following materials. Failure to provide all specified materials will result in termination of consideration for promotion. At the conclusion of the process, including any appeal proceedings, the materials, except as noted in Section V.B.6.h. below, shall be returned to the candidate.
    1. Curriculum vitae.
    2. Candidate statement that includes the candidate’s self-assessment of teaching effectiveness and philosophy, scholarly activities and growth, campus and community service, and overall contribution to the college.
    3. All course syllabi and related course materials for the past five years.
    4. All student teaching evaluations (objective summary and all subjective forms) for each class taught at Albright for the past five years.
    5. Any additional supporting material, including items from the candidate’s personnel file, relevant to the criteria for promotion as set forth in Section V.A.. of this Handbook.
    6. Evidence of scholarship, per the criteria set forth in Section V.A.5. of this Handbook.
    7. Evidence of service, per the criteria set forth in Section V.A.6. of this Handbook.
    8. In addition the file will contain the following materials obtained by the Chief Academic Officer and ACRT.  After the completion of the process, including any appeal proceedings, these materials will be stored in confidential file in the Academic Affairs Office. The candidate shall not have access to the materials listed below [(i) through (iii)].
      1. Department Chairperson letter addressing such topics as: teaching effectiveness, relationship with students, professional accomplishments, commitments to the department and the College.  The chairperson’s evaluation of teaching must be based partly on recent classroom observations. This letter will be reviewed by all departmental faculty who are tenured or are non-tenure track but have been teaching full time in the department for at least six years and will be written after the Chairperson has had time to review the candidates Promotion File, but not later than the second Friday of February. All department members who are departmental faculty who are tenured or are non-tenure track but have been teaching full time in the department for at least six years will sign a form supplied by the Office of the Provost stating that they have reviewed the letter.
      2. Narrative evaluations based on two announced classroom visitations by two colleagues designated by the ACRT, The candidate will submit the names of 3-4 faculty members, other than the candidate’s chairperson. ACRT will select several faculty members to provide the evaluations, including faculty in addition to those on the list provided by the candidate. Peer observers are strongly encouraged to provide feedback to the candidates after classroom visits.
      3. Materials the ACRT solicits or are provided that are relevant to the criteria for promotion set forth in Section V. of this Handbook are reasonably judged by the ACRT to be factually reliable statements based on direct observation of the candidate by the person making the statement.
  7. Consideration by ACRT and the Chief Academic Officer
    1. After the closure of the Promotion File, the ACRT and the Chief Academic Officer shall separately begin an evaluation of the candidate’s record with respect to teaching, scholarly or creative achievement, and service, based on, and only on, all material properly included in the candidate’s Promotion file. Decisions made with respect to the credence and importance of given materials in the rank and tenure file shall be at the discretion of the ACRT and the Chief Academic Officer, using their best professional judgment, but all members of the ACRT, and the Chief Academic Officer, shall give adequate consideration and evaluate all such material pursuant to the criteria and standards set forth in this Handbook Section V. for such evaluation.
    2. The detailed recommendation of the ACRT with respect to any candidacy or application presented to it for review shall be based upon collegial discussion, and reached through a process of deliberation employing high standards of intellectual probity and rigor. The Committee shall give consideration to and shall respond to all questions raised by any member of the committee.  The sole aim of the Committee’s deliberations shall be the thorough consideration of the record.
    3. The recommendation of the Chief Academic Officer with respect to any candidacy or application presented to him or her for review shall fully comply with the provisions set forth for the conduct and reporting of the ACRT’s review and recommendation.
    4. At such time as the ACRT and the Chief Academic Officer have completed their respective accounts of their recommendation with regard to a candidacy, including both the recommendation itself and the explanation of the recommendation, or the dissent and the explanation of the dissent, the ACRT and the Chief Academic Officer shall meet to discuss both recommendations.
    5. A final written joint statement from the ACRT and the Chief Academic Officer will be produced by their joint deliberation, shall be transmitted to the President over the joint signatures of the Chief Academic Officer and the chair of the ACRT.
    6. In the case of a negative recommendation, the ACRT and Chief Academic Officer shall prepare a letter to the candidate outlining the rationale for the decision to be delivered to the candidate following the final decision by the President.
  8. Presidential Consideration  After receipt of the record consisting of the file and joint written statement from the ACRT and the Chief Academic Officer, the President shall review the entire record, and only such record, thus transmitted to him or her. If the President’s intended recommendation differs from that of the ACRT, the President and the ACRT shall meet in an attempt to resolve their differences. The President shall set forth both his or her written recommendation and the grounds thereof and transmit this written statement to the candidate, the ACRT and the Chief Academic Officer.
  9. Board of Trustees Consideration  After receipt of the President’s recommendation and after thorough consideration of the President’s recommendation and the record, the Academic Affairs Committee of the Board of Trustees shall, submit its recommendation to the Board of Trustees.Should the Academic Affairs Committee’s recommendation differ from that of the President, the Committee and the President shall attempt to resolve such difference prior to the Academic Affairs Committee’s submission to the Board of Trustees.The Board of Trustees makes its decision and communicates it to the candidate and the President.
  10. Guideline Dates  Each spring the guideline dates for the following academic year shall be published in the April issue of the Chief Academic Officer’s Bulletin.  These dates shall be:
Each Spring no later than the second Friday in May Letter sent by the Chief Academic Officer to all Faculty eligible for promotion decisions in the following academic year. Letter outlines information to be submitted and the date files are to be completed (copies of such letter available in Academic Affairs office).
No later than third Friday in June Untenured faculty eligible for promotion must notify the Chief Academic Officer, in writing, of their request for promotion decision in the following academic year.

Eligible faculty candidates reply to the Chief Academic Officer in writing with recommendations for peer reviewers.

From the third Friday in June through second Friday in August Peer reviewers are selected by the ACRT and invited to participate in the process by the Chief Academic Officer The Chief Academic Officer notifies the candidates of the selected peer reviewers. Candidates send fall syllabi to peer reviewers.
No later than Two Weeks Prior to the Second Friday in February Candidate submits completed file to Department chair for review.
No Later than the Second Friday in February Completed files are due in the office of the Chief Academic Officer for those under consideration for promotion. Department chairs’ letters of evaluation and peer reviews are due. Beyond this date no additional information may be added to the candidate’s Promotion File without the knowledge of the candidate and the department chair.