1. Home
  2. Procedures Renewal and Promotion AGFM 2017 version

Procedures Renewal and Promotion AGFM 2017 version

June 2017

Academic General Faculty Members (AGFM) provide important academic service in the College and Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, focusing primarily on teaching, research, and integration of professional practice. New provost-level policies on the “Employment of Academic General Faculty Members (Tenure-Ineligible)” went into effect on January 3, 2017. This statement of Arts and Sciences policies and procedures for Academic General Faculty Members summarizes how such faculty are to be involved in the governance of the College and its programs, as well as procedures for their appointment, renewal, and promotion.

 

The provost’s policy requires that Academic General Faculty Members be “represented appropriately in matters of shared governance in the school, including, but not limited to, the hiring, evaluation, and promotion of Academic General Faculty Members. School policies may, but are not required to, include Academic General Faculty Members in matters related to the hiring, evaluation, and promotion of tenured or tenure-track faculty members.”

In Arts & Sciences, AGFM will be actively included in the life of their departments and/or programs, not just in the areas specifically mentioned in the provost’s policy, but more broadly in areas like curricular design, advising, the evaluation of teaching performance, email communications, and department events, in a manner that is consistent with the nature and terms of their appointment.

AGFM will be represented appropriately in matters of shared governance, including, but not limited to, the hiring, evaluation, renewal, and promotion of AGFM. As a rule, AGFM or their chosen representative(s) will also be able to vote on issues that directly affect them as citizens of their department or program. Departments and programs will draft bylaws governing the representation of AGFM in matters of shared governance. These bylaws will specify the issues on which AGFM or their chosen representatives will be eligible to vote. In cases in which voting eligibility on a particular issue might be in question, the chair or director will clarify the matter in advance.

A department’s or program’s bylaws on AGFM representation in matters of shared governance may restrict participation in (e.g., voting on) the hiring, evaluation, renewal, and promotion of AGFM to AGFM of a higher rank.

A department’s or program’s bylaws on AGFM representation in matters of shared governance may stipulate:

That broader categories of AGFM shall participate in decisions related to the hiring, evaluation, renewal, and promotion of AGFM;
 
and/or that AGFM of one or more ranks shall participate in decisions related to the hiring, evaluation, renewal, and promotion of tenured and tenure-track faculty.
AGFM will be engaged in service whenever appropriate and possible. Lecturer, Teaching Track, and Practice Track AGFM are expected to contribute to the academic life of their department and/or program by providing service to their department, the school, and/or the university. For AGFM on these tracks with a full 3-3 load, service should normally occupy no more than 10% of their time, although more substantial service duties such as Director of Undergraduate Program work may be assigned if the faculty member is given a course reduction from his or her base teaching load. This 10% limit applies also to half-time Lecturers in the Music Faculty who teach a full complement of performance classes.

AGFM teaching a 2-2 load, especially those promoted above the entry-level rank, will perform service duties up to 40% of their time.

The case of research AGFM is, in some sense, even more complex in regard to service; most of their paid time is dedicated to conducting research (broadly defined), which is, in turn, supported by external sponsors. Consequently, unless a service commitment is incidental (that is, less than roughly 5% of the faculty member’s time), the department has two choices: the portion of the faculty member’s salary covered by grants can be reduced, with the portion devoted to service covered by non-grant sources; or the faculty member could be paid for service on an overload basis, as long as such payment agreements accord with the provost’s policy on “Faculty External Consulting and Internal Overload.” In either case, funding for the service work will come from departmental, non-grant sources such as overhead recovery fees generated by and distributed to the departments. If this guideline is followed, effort reports certified by research AGFM will be accurate, and external sponsors will not be paying for committee activity.

AGFM should be represented on the elected and appointed committees of Arts & Sciences, including the Promotion and Renewal Committee for AGFM as specified above. For a partial list of such committees, see http://as.virginia.edu/committees). AGFM should be represented on other school-wide committees of shared governance, whether standing or ad hoc, that for one reason or another may not be listed in the URL above (e.g., the Page-Barbour Committee).

According to the provost’s policy, “Academic General Faculty Members hired with professorial rank will be given an initial appointment of: (1) one three-year term or (2) up to three successive one-year appointments. After the successful completion of the initial three-year appointment term, or the three successive one-year appointments, the Academic General Faculty Member will, if renewed, be offered a three-year appointment. Exceptions to these practices must be approved both in writing and in advance by the provost.”  Furthermore, the policy holds that “Academic General Faculty Members holding the rank of assistant professor may choose to be considered for promotion to associate professor after serving six continuous years.  In extraordinary circumstances, the faculty member’s supervisor or manager (usually a department chair, associate dean, or dean) and the faculty member may agree that a faculty member at the assistant professor rank is ready to be considered for promotion prior to the seventh year of continuous service.”

Consistent with the above policy, the initial renewal reviews will not normally involve the question of promotion but will focus on the question of whether the faculty member should be renewed for a three-year term. In the spring semester of the penultimate year of three-year contracts, departments will organize a renewal review that considers all materials relevant to the faculty member’s performance of his or her duties.  The renewal review will be carried out by a committee of at least two members from inside the department.  At least one member will be a member of the Academic General Faculty.  No external membership is needed, but external members could be substituted for department members where there is no AGFM to serve on the committee from inside the department.

The department renewal committee will consider: annual reports over the preceding three years (or two years, in the case of the first renewal); publications and grants submitted and received for research faculty; course evaluations, syllabi, and course observations for teaching faculty. No student or colleague letters will be part of these initial renewal reviews. The department committee will write a report on the question of whether the faculty member should be renewed, and the chair will write a letter reporting his or her recommendation. No department vote needs to be taken at the first renewal (year two), but will be taken at the second renewal (year five), and reported by the chair in his or her letter.

The department’s recommendation will be reviewed by the Promotion and Renewal (P&R) Committee for Academic General Faculty Members, which will make a recommendation to the Dean.  The Dean will communicate his or her decisions to the chair so that the chair can provide feedback on performance and expectations. The contents of this conversation will be documented by the chair in a memo of conversation that is reviewed by the AD, sent to the faculty member, and then filed in the faculty member’s personnel file in the Dean’s Office.  The Dean will communicate his or her decision on renewal in a letter to the faculty members.  For faculty in their third, one-year contract, notification will be sent by May 24 of the third contract year.  For faculty on three-year contracts, notification will be sent at least one year prior to the end of a three-year contract, providing a year of notice if the contract is not renewed.

If an AGFM forgoes the opportunity to be considered for promotion after year six, subsequent renewal reviews will follow the same format describes for fifth year reviews above.  As in all of these initial reviews, these subsequent reviews expect high levels of performance in all areas of responsibility, and may be non-renewed with one-year’s notice if performance has not been at this level.
 

After an AGFM has served for six years, he or she is eligible to be considered for promotion in rank.  Departments will set deadlines for the date by which members of the AGFM who are eligible for promotion must decide whether to put themselves up for promotion in the next academic year, but in no case will this deadline be later than September 15.  This first deadline will also be the date by which the promotion candidate is required to submit their CV and if required, nominate letter-writers (see below).  This first deadline is designed to ensure the department has sufficient time to organize the promotion review prior to the deadlines for the submission of the department’s promotion file to the Dean’s Office.

The Department will also set deadlines for the promotion candidate to submit the materials that will make up the portfolio for the promotion case.  This date will be no later than October 1.

The promotion review will be carried out by a committee of at least two members, who may both be from the candidate’s department, or may include one external member. At least one of the members will be an Academic General Faculty Member of a rank that is more senior than the candidate. The committee’s membership is subject to approval by the relevant Associate Dean. This committee will review the performance of the faculty member over the preceding five years.

The department proceeds through its consideration process (including discussion of the case by all eligible members of the department personnel committee, and a recorded vote), arriving at one of the following recommendations:

a) a recommendation for promotion, accompanied by all materials that are part of the promotion portfolio (see below), submitted to the Dean at a date subject to annual notice but not later than December 10.

b) a recommendation against promotion, accompanied by all materials by the same date.

The department recommendation will then be considered by the Dean’s Promotion and Renewal (P&R) Committee for Academic General Faculty Members.  Each year the Dean appoints a P&R Committee consisting of seven to nine members, with a majority drawn from the senior ranks of the AGFM. After the committee members have individually studied the materials on the various candidates, the committee will meet to discuss and evaluate them in detail. The Chair of the department and/or the Chair of the department committee may be invited to appear before the P&R committee to answer questions. The Dean or a representative from among the Associate Deans will preside and will be present at all meetings of the committee. When the interviews and discussions are completed, the P&R committee will vote on promotion and renewal recommendations for each candidate. Following the final deliberations, the Dean will decide whether or not to concur with the recommendations of the committee and submit those recommendations to the Provost Office for final approval.

The Provost will review promotion recommendations from the Dean’s Office (positive and negative). The Provost will make final decisions regarding promotion.

In the case of a negative recommendation, the dean will notify the Academic General Faculty Member in writing with a copy to the provost. The faculty member will have thirty days to submit a written appeal to the provost. See provost policy for details.

As specified in the Provost’s Policy, “An Academic General Faculty Member whose promotion review is unsuccessful may request reappointment with the same rank. A school may renew the contract of an assistant professor who has been denied a promotion but is not required to do so. Reappointment following an unsuccessful promotion review will be for three-year terms. The faculty member’s appointment may or may not be renewed at the school’s discretion, so long as the school gives notice of non-renewal in accordance with section IV.B, Standards of Notice for Non-Renewal.”

When an AGFM is considered for promotion and denied, but renewed for another three-year term at the prior rank, it is A&S policy not to reconsider that faculty member for promotion review in either of the next two academic year cycles.  Once two years has passed, the faculty member will be eligible to be considered again for promotion, following the same procedures summarized above.

Standards for Promotion to AGFM Titles and Required Portfolio Materials

Expectations for promotion and the materials required for promotion reviews differ according to track and rank.
 

Faculty with the titles Lecturer or Instructor are members of the Academic General Faculty whose duties are at least 60% (2-2) in teaching, and who are employed in positions that require a masters’ degree and hold such a degree. Faculty on this track who have held the Lecturer or Instructor title for at least six years are eligible to be considered for promotion to Senior Lecturer or Senior Instructor. According to the provost’s policy, promotion to these ranks requires “demonstrated excellence as a teacher.” Promotion portfolios for candidates for these ranks will include electronic copies of the following:

According to the provost’s policy, “Promotion to Distinguished Lecturer or Distinguished Instructor requires further sustained excellence as a teacher and substantial service to the school or University.” A&S requires, further, that promotion to these ranks requires a demonstrated impact on pedagogy in the field. This may take the form of presentations or demonstrations at conferences, published articles or books on pedagogy, and other means of disseminating pedagogical techniques. Substantial service to the school or University may include service as a department/program officer, service on committees, or substantial and sustained advising responsibilities. Promotion portfolios for candidates for these ranks will include electronic copies of items 1-11 above, plus the following:

  1. a current curriculum vitae
  2. a prose statement from the candidate describing his or her approach to teaching, curricular innovations, and teaching plans for the future; and service to the department or school—preferably not more than two or three pages.
  3. student evaluations for the past five years, and a spreadsheet summarizing this data
  4. course syllabi from the most recent year
  5. annual reports for the past five years
  6. faculty performance evaluation feedback in the two most recent peer review cycles
  7. data on student performance (e.g., language competency exams, measures of student progress, examples of stellar work, etc.), where available
  8. the department report, chair’s letter, and memo of conversation from the most recent three-year contract renewal review
  9. 3-5 student letters
  10. a report, prepared by the department committee, that includes reports on classroom observations as well as analysis of all of the above data on teaching performance and service to the department. Teaching includes advising duties, so please do not omit an assessment of advising when you address this category. Number and kinds of advisees will be specified.
  11. A chair’s letter that includes a summary of the evaluation process and department deliberations, including the recorded vote on promotion. The Chair will state the major reasons why the department voted as it did, explaining and summarizing the discussion during the promotion review meeting. The Chair will also provide his/her own assessment of the candidate, including the candidate's strengths and weaknesses and the Chair's reasons for voting one way or the other.

According to the provost’s policy, “Promotion to Distinguished Lecturer or Distinguished Instructor requires further sustained excellence as a teacher and substantial service to the school or University.” A&S requires, further, that promotion to these ranks requires a demonstrated impact on pedagogy in the field. This may take the form of presentations or demonstrations at conferences, published articles or books on pedagogy, and other means of disseminating pedagogical techniques. Substantial service to the school or University may include service as a department/program officer, service on committees, or substantial and sustained advising responsibilities. Promotion portfolios for candidates for these ranks will include electronic copies of items 1-11 above, plus the following:

  1. Publications and conference papers that help demonstrate the impact of the candidate’s curricular and pedagogical innovations on teaching in the field.
  2. Six to eight confidential letters, solicited from an even mix of internal and external experts competent to assess the candidate's impact on pedagogy in the field and professional standing. These letters will come from a balanced group that includes those nominated by the candidate and those chosen by the department committee. Please see the appendix online for sample letters to external reviewers.
  3. In the dossier, include a spreadsheet that lists all recommended reviewers with brief comments on their credentials, indicating whether each is “internal” or “external”; the list must be divided explicitly and clearly into reviewers suggested by the candidate and those suggested by the department committee. Please note on the spreadsheet which reviewers were approved by the relevant divisional Associate Dean; which reviewers agreed to write; and which reviewers declined (with a summary of their reason for declining). In addition, please include: (1) a copy of the sample letter sent to external reviewers; and (2) a copy of all e-mail and paper correspondence from prospective reviewers (both acceptances and declines).

Faculty with the titles Assistant Professor, General Faculty; Associate Professor, General Faculty; and Professor, General Faculty are members of the Academic General Faculty who duties are at least 60% (2-2) in teaching, and who are employed in positions that require a qualifying terminal degree and hold such a degree. These teaching track titles will also be assigned to Monroe Hall deans who serve as Assistant Deans / Association Deans, even though advising makes up the largest portion of these faculty members’ duties.

Faculty who have held the title Assistant Professor, General Faculty, for at least six years are eligible to be considered for promotion to Associate Professor, General Faculty.  According to the provost’s policy, faculty with this rank must “demonstrate sustained excellence in teaching and meet or exceed the expectations of their position as defined in their appointment letter or position statement. They also must demonstrate that they have attained a local or regional reputation as a superior educator. Scholarship is not required for promotion unless it is specified as a requirement in the appointment letter or position statement. If required, scholarship for promotion on the teaching track must be evaluated for its contributions to the enhancement of the Academic General Faculty Member’s teaching.”

Promotion portfolios for candidates for this rank will include electronic copies of the following:

  1. a current curriculum vitae
  2. a prose statement from the candidate describing his or her approach to teaching, curricular innovations, and teaching plans for the future; and service to the department or school—preferably not more than two or three pages.
  3. student evaluations for the past five years, and a spreadsheet summarizing this data.
  4. course syllabi from the most recent year
  5. annual reports for the past five years.
  6. faculty performance evaluation feedback in the two most recent peer review cycles
  7. data on student performance (e.g., language competency exams, measures of student progress, examples of stellar work, etc.), where available
  8. the department report, chair’s letter, and memo of conversation from the most recent three-year contract renewal review
  9. 3-5 student letters
  10. four to six letters, solicited from internal or external experts competent to assess the candidate's local or regional reputation as a superior educator, accompanied by a spreadsheet identifying all referees solicited for references and providing a brief description of their qualifications to assess the candidate's work. These letters will come from a balanced group that includes those nominated by the candidate and those chosen by the committee. Please see the appendix online for sample letters to external reviewers. In the dossier, include a spreadsheet that lists all recommended reviewers with brief comments on their credentials, indicating whether each is “internal” or “external”; the list must be divided explicitly and clearly into reviewers suggested by the candidate and those suggested by the department committee. Please note on the spreadsheet which reviewers were approved by the relevant divisional Associate Dean; which reviewers agreed to write; and which reviewers declined (with a summary of their reason for declining). In addition, please include: (1) a copy of the sample letter sent to external reviewers; and (2) a copy of all e-mail and paper correspondence from prospective reviewers (both acceptances and declines).
  11. a report, prepared by the department committee, that includes reports on classroom observations as well as analysis of all of the above data on teaching. Teaching includes advising duties, so please do not omit an assessment of advising when you address this category. Number and kinds of advisees will be specified.  The report will also assess the candidate's service to the department, the University, the profession, and the Commonwealth; and discuss the record of the candidate in in other areas in which the position requires contributions.
  12. A chair’s letter that includes a summary of the evaluation process and department deliberations, including the recorded vote on promotion. The Chair will state the major reasons why the department voted as it did, explaining and summarizing the discussion during the promotion review meeting. The Chair will also provide his/her own assessment of the candidate, including the candidate's strengths and weaknesses and the Chair's reasons for voting one way or the other.

According to the provost’s policy, promotion to Professor, General Faculty requires “further sustained excellence in teaching, contributions to the educational capabilities and excellence of the University, and regional, national, or international reputation as a superior educator.” A&S requires, further, that contributions to the educational capabilities and excellence of the University are to be demonstrated by the development and dissemination within the University of pedagogical techniques, involvement in the Center for Teaching Excellence, pedagogical mentoring of teaching faculty, participating in regional and national conferences, and so forth. Substantial service to the school or University will also be valued and may include service as a department/program officer, service on committees, or substantial and sustained advising responsibilities. Promotion portfolios for candidates for these ranks will include electronic copies of items 1-12 above, plus the following:

  1. Publications and conference papers that help demonstrate the impact of the candidate’s curricular and pedagogical innovations on teaching in the field.
  2. For promotion to Professor, General Faculty, the group of six to eight letter writers must include some external letter-writers competent to assess the candidate’s regional, national, or international reputation as a superior educator.

Faculty with the titles Research Assistant Professor; Research Associate Professor; and Research Professor are members of the Academic General Faculty who duties are at least 60% in research, and who are employed in positions that require a qualifying terminal degree and hold such a degree.

Faculty who have held the title Research Assistant Professor for at least six years are eligible to be considered for promotion to Research Associate Professor.  According to the provost’s policy, faculty with this rank must have a record of “independent research or research support as defined in the appointment letter or position statement, a sustained record of scholarship appropriate to the position, and national or international recognition for contributions to the field.”

Promotion portfolios for candidates for this rank will include electronic copies of the following:

  1. a current curriculum vitae, dividing publications into the following categories: books, articles, digital projects, popular articles and other publications, and project reports. Work accomplished since appointment will be separated from the work that preceded it, upon which the initial appointment was based. (In the case of a dissertation that has been readied for publication, information is requested concerning the extent and nature of the revisions.)
  2. all available reviews of the candidate's published work, in their full range, favorable and unfavorable, together with any reader's reports on manuscripts submitted for publication.
  3. pdf digital copies of all publications to date (with the exception of books-see next item)
  4. two hard copies each of all hard-bound books published to date.
  5. a prose statement from the candidate describing work in progress and research plans, preferably not more than two or three pages.
  6. student evaluations for the past five years, if any teaching was part of the candidate’s responsibilities.
  7. annual reports for the past five years. 
  8. faculty performance evaluation feedback in the two most recent peer review cycles.
  9. the department report, chair’s letter, and memo of conversation from the most recent three-year contract renewal review.
  10. six to eight confidential letters, solicited from external experts competent to assess the whether the candidate has demonstrated: the ability to do independent research or research support as defined in the appointment letter or position statement; a sustained record of scholarship appropriate to the position; and has received national or international recognition for contributions to the field. These letters will come from a balanced group that includes those nominated by the candidate and those chosen by the committee. Please see the appendix online for sample letters to external reviewers. In the dossier, include a spreadsheet that lists all recommended reviewers with brief comments on their credentials; the list must be divided explicitly and clearly into reviewers suggested by the candidate and those suggested by the department committee. Please note on the spreadsheet which reviewers were approved by the relevant divisional Associate Dean; which reviewers agreed to write; and which reviewers declined (with a summary of their reason for declining). In addition, please include: (1) a copy of the sample letter sent to external reviewers; and (2) a copy of all e-mail and paper correspondence from prospective reviewers (both acceptances and declines).
  11. a report, prepared by the department committee, assessing the merit of the candidate's published work and career trajectory, including the promise of future research. This analysis will include thorough discussion of the specific strengths and weaknesses of each major work of scholarship and its contribution to the candidate’s national or international stature. If a proper assessment cannot be made within the department, an independent evaluation will be sought from outside in consultation with the Dean's Office. The report will also assess the candidate's service to the department, the University, the profession, and the Commonwealth and discuss the teaching contribution if any teaching was required for the position.
  12. A chair’s letter that includes a summary of the evaluation process and department deliberations, including the recorded vote on promotion. The Chair will state the major reasons why the department voted as it did, explaining and summarizing the discussion during the promotion review meeting. The Chair will also provide his/her own assessment of the candidate, including the candidate's strengths and weaknesses and the Chair's reasons for voting one way or the other.

According to the provost’s policy, promotion to Research Professor requires “further achievements, as set forth in the school’s policies on Academic General Faculty Members, such as significant innovations or accomplishments in research or many years of extraordinary service to the school or University.” The record of scholarship will typically include a substantial body of peer-reviewed work (e.g., a book, articles, digital projects) published since promotion to Associate Research Professor. National and international recognition will be demonstrated by letters from faculty beyond UVa. Extraordinary service to the school or University may be demonstrated by development or leadership of centers or programs, service as a department/program officer, service on committees, or substantial and sustained advising.

Promotion portfolios for candidates for these ranks will include electronic copies of items 1-12 above, with the following differences:

  1. In the CV, work accomplished since promotion to research associate professor will be separated from the work that preceded it, upon which the promotion to associate or initial appointment at the associate rank was based.
  2. Only books published since promotion to research associate professor will be provided (two copies).
  3. Materials such as journal and book articles, as well as unpublished manuscripts, that are provided in the form of “pdf” documents will include all materials completed since promotion to associate.  Selective articles published prior to that may be included to give reviewers an opportunity to gauge progress and trajectory since the early-career-stage, but no comprehensive submission of such materials is expected.

Faculty with the titles Assistant Professor of Practice; Associate Professor of Practice; and Professor of Practice are members of the Academic General Faculty who are employed in positions that focus on “integrating professional experience with the academic mission of the school.” They may hold a terminal degree but are not required to do so. They are, however, required to have relevant professional experience “equivalent to a Ph.D.”

Faculty who have held the title Assistant Professor of Practice for at least six years are eligible to be considered for promotion to Associate Professor of Practice.  According to the provost’s policy, faculty with this rank must “demonstrate sustained excellence in integrating professional experience with the academic mission of the school, meet or exceed the expectations of their position as defined in their appointment letter or position statement, and receive regional, national, or international recognition for contributions to their professions. Scholarship is not required for promotion unless it is specified as a requirement in the appointment letter or position statement. If required, scholarship for promotion on the practice track should relate primarily to integrating professional experience into academic instruction or scholarly research.”

Promotion portfolios for candidates for this rank will include electronic copies of the following:

  1. a current curriculum vitae
  2. a prose statement from the candidate describing his or her approach to teaching, curricular innovations, and teaching plans for the future; and service to the department or school—preferably not more than two or three pages. The document may also cover the candidate’s approach to research that integrates professional experience with the academic mission of A&S—if scholarship is required for the position.
  3. student evaluations for the past five years, and a spreadsheet summarizing this data
  4. course syllabi from the most recent year
  5. annual reports for the past five years
  6. faculty performance evaluation feedback in the two most recent peer review cycles
  7. data on student performance (e.g., language competency exams, measures of student progress, examples of stellar work, etc.), where available
  8. the department report, chair’s letter, and memo of conversation from the most recent three-year contract renewal review
  9. 3-5 student letters
  10. pdf digital copies of publications (or hard copies of books) when the position requires scholarship.
  11. four to six letters, solicited from internal or external experts competent to assess the candidate's regional, national, or international reputation for contributions to their profession and the integration of professional experience with the academic mission of A&S. These letters will come from a balanced group that includes those nominated by the candidate and those chosen by the committee. Please see the appendix online for sample letters to external reviewers. In the dossier, include a spreadsheet that lists all recommended reviewers with brief comments on their credentials, indicating whether each is “internal” or “external”; the list must be divided explicitly and clearly into reviewers suggested by the candidate and those suggested by the department committee. Please note on the spreadsheet which reviewers were approved by the relevant divisional Associate Dean; which reviewers agreed to write; and which reviewers declined (with a summary of their reason for declining). In addition, please include: (1) a copy of the sample letter sent to external reviewers; and (2) a copy of all e-mail and paper correspondence from prospective reviewers (both acceptances and declines).
  12. a report, prepared by the department committee, that includes reports on classroom observations as well as analysis of all of the above data on teaching. Teaching includes advising duties, so please do not omit an assessment of advising when you address this category. Number and kinds of advisees will be specified.  The report will also assess the candidate's service to the department, the University, the profession, and the Commonwealth; and discuss the record of the candidate in in other areas in which the position requires contributions.
  13. A chair’s letter that includes a summary of the evaluation process and department deliberations, including the recorded vote on promotion. The Chair will state the major reasons why the department voted as it did, explaining and summarizing the discussion during the promotion review meeting. The Chair will also provide his/her own assessment of the candidate, including the candidate's strengths and weaknesses and the Chair's reasons for voting one way or the other.

According to the provost’s policy, promotion to Professor of Practice requires “further sustained excellence in integrating professional experience with the academic mission of the school, substantial contributions to the capabilities and excellence of the University, and further recognition for regional, national, or international achievements in the relevant professional field(s).” Substantial contributions to the capabilities and excellence of the University may be demonstrated by development or leadership of centers or programs, service as a department/program officer, service on committees, substantial and sustained advising. Promotion portfolios for candidates for these ranks will include electronic copies of items 1-13 above, plus the following:

  1. In the CV, work accomplished since promotion to associate professor of practice will be separated from the work that preceded it, upon which the promotion to associate or initial appointment at the associate rank was based.
  2. Where research is required for the position, only books published since promotion to research associate professor will be provided (two copies).
  3. Materials such as journal and book articles, as well as unpublished manuscripts, that are provided in the form of “pdf” documents will include all materials completed since promotion to associate.  Selective articles published prior to that may be included to give reviewers an opportunity to gauge progress and trajectory since the early-career-stage, but no comprehensive submission of such materials is expected.
  4. For promotion to Professor of Practice, the group of six to eight letter writers must include some external letter-writers competent to assess the candidate’s regional, national, or international reputation contributions to their profession and the integration of professional experience with the academic mission of A&S.

The contract renewal process for AGFM who have been promoted depends on the annual performance ratings that have been received over the three-year period leading up to the contract renewal review. According to the provost’s policy, all salaried members of the AGFM must undergo annual performance reviews in accordance with the provost’s policy “Annual Performance Reviews.” Arts & Sciences requires departments to review their AGFM annually, including not only faculty in three-year appointments but also to those on one-year salaried contracts. Departments rate each faculty member’s performance in their areas of responsibility (e.g. teaching and service), using the Excellent-Very Good-Good-Fair-Poor scale, and are required to communicate their rating and qualitative feedback on performance to each faculty member.

The three-year renewal process for these faculty who have been promoted is governed by the provost’s policy which states:

“Once promoted to associate professor, the Academic General Faculty Member will continue to be reappointed for three-year terms and may be given notice of non-renewal in accordance with the standards of renewal defined below in section IV.B, Standards of Notice for Non-Renewal, only with the provost’s advance written permission and only if one of the two conditions applies:

  1. The faculty member’s performance falls below the high standards required by the school: At any time, or if the annual performance review or interim evaluations reveal that, the faculty member’s performance is not at a high level, the school will provide the faculty member with written guidance that documents the deficiencies in performance, stipulates that future reappointments are contingent upon significant improvement in performance, and establishes a timeline by which the faculty member needs to demonstrate significant improvements in performance.
  2. The school no longer needs the disciplinary expertise for which the faculty member was hired: Situations that may warrant non-renewal include, but are not limited to, the closure of a specialized center, sustained declines in student enrollment in a particular field, significant curricular redesign, or a change in curricular standards defined by an accrediting agency.

These conditions apply as well to Academic General Faculty Members hired with the rank of associate or full professor who are renewed after their initial appointment term (see section II.C, Initial Appointment Term).”

Arts & Sciences considers the ratings of “Excellent,” “Very Good,” or “Good” to constitute our “high standards.” When a department rates the annual performance of a faculty member below these levels (i.e. “fair” or “poor”)—regardless of when in a three-year contract this happens—A&S will convene the Promotion and Renewal Committee for AGFM and review the evidence of performance below the required high standards. If the below-standards rating is confirmed, the Dean’s Office will work with the department to ensure the faculty member receives “written guidance that documents the deficiencies in performance, stipulates that future reappointments are contingent upon significant improvement in performance, and establishes a timeline by which the faculty member needs to demonstrate significant improvements in performance.”

Contract renewals for AGFM covered by the new policy who have been promoted beyond the entry-level rank (and faculty who have earned ECE under the old policy) who have received annual performance reviews at or above the “high standards” level for three consecutive years – If a check of annual reviews confirms strong performance across the preceding three-year period, we will renew these contracts in the penultimate year of the contract, except: 1) when there has been a loss of external or contingent funding needed to support the position; or 2) when “the school no longer needs the disciplinary expertise for which the faculty member was hired. Situations that may warrant non-renewal include, but are not limited to, the closure of a specialized center, sustained declines in student enrollment in a particular field, curricular redesign, or a change in curricular standards defined by an accrediting agency.”

Contract renewals for AGFM promoted beyond the entry-level rank (or with ECE) who have received annual performance reviews below the “high standards” level. Faculty whose average annual review ratings for their areas of responsibility fell below the “high standards” level in any one of the three years leading up to the penultimate year of his or her contract will undergo a full renewal review (following the process outlined for 5th year reviews above), with a department report subject to a vote of faculty in the department; a chairs letter; etc; submitted to the P&R committee for review and a recommendation to the Dean.  The review will assess whether the faculty member’s overall performance over the period meets the “high standards” expectation, especially in the period after the faculty member was given “written guidance that documents the deficiencies in performance, stipulates that future reappointments are contingent upon significant improvement in performance, and establishes a timeline by which the faculty member needs to demonstrate significant improvements in performance.” If the Dean recommends against renewal, the recommendation will go to the Provost’s Office for review. If the provost office approves that negative recommendation, the faculty member will be given one year’s notice of non-renewal.

Note that the policy requiring a year’s notice before non-renewal does not apply when positions are supported by contingent funds that are no longer available, or when termination is for just cause.

Faculty who earned "ECE" — or are eligible for ECE because they were hired into their current position prior to JANUARY 3, 2017

Renewal reviews for faculty who earned “Expectation of Continuing Employment” under the AGFM policy in force prior to January 3, 2017, will be governed by the process spelled out above for AGFM promoted above the entry level rank.

AGFM who were hired prior to January 3, 2017, and are eligible to earn ECE, have two options:

  1. They may opt to forgo an ECE review and opt instead to undergo a promotion review under the new policy.  If they wish to do so, they should go to this online form to submit a signed statement to the A&S Dean’s Office stating: “I, (state name), voluntarily elect to undergo my next multi-year contract renewal review under Policy PROV-004, choosing to be considered for a promotional review after my sixth year of employment and forgoing my eligibility for ECE.” Faculty who make this choice and are promoted will be renewed in subsequent cycles under the same process used for faculty who hold ECE.  Note that promotions under the new policy to the ranks of Senior Lecturer; Associate Professor, General Faculty; and Associate Professor of Practice do not require external letters. Promotion reviews under the new policy also provide A&S with the option of renewal without promotion. In contrast, ECE reviews come with “jeopardy”—the requirement that the University not renew a faculty member who has been reviewed for ECE and found not to meet this standard.
  2. They may opt to be considered in their fifth year of employment for ECE, in which case they will be reviewed under A&S procedures for ECE Reviews which require external letters in all cases and come with “jeopardy”—the requirement that the University not renew a faculty member who has been reviewed for ECE and found not to meet this standard.  The procedures for ECE Reviews are spelled out below.

ECE Review Cases are considered in year 5, with deadlines on the dates specified for P&T reviews.  They involve the same steps (department review, consideration by the P&T Committee, and review by the provost’s P&T Committee).  Portfolios for candidates up for ECE Review will include electronic copies of the following:

  1. a current curriculum vitae
  2. a prose statement from the candidate describing his or her approach to each area of his or her responsibility as defined by the position description: teaching, curricular innovations, and teaching plans for the future; research; and/or service to the department or school—preferably not more than two or three pages.
  3. student evaluations for the past five years, and a spreadsheet summarizing this data (if the position requires teaching).
  4. course syllabi from the most recent year (if the position requires teaching).
  5. annual reports for the past five years.
  6. faculty performance evaluation feedback in the two most recent peer review cycles
  7. data on student performance (e.g., language competency exams, measures of student progress, examples of stellar work, etc.), where available and if the position requires teaching
  8. the department report, chair’s letter, and memo of conversation from the most recent three-year contract renewal review
  9. 3-5 student letters
  10. pdf digital copies of publications (or hard copies of books) when the position requires scholarship, if the position requires research
  11. six to eight letters, solicited from internal and external experts competent to assess the candidate's regional, national, or international reputation for contributions in their areas of responsibility. These letters will come from a balanced group that includes those nominated by the candidate and those chosen by the committee. Please see the appendix online for sample letters to external reviewers. In the dossier, include a spreadsheet that lists all recommended reviewers with brief comments on their credentials, indicating whether each is “internal” or “external”; the list must be divided explicitly and clearly into reviewers suggested by the candidate and those suggested by the department committee. Please note on the spreadsheet which reviewers were approved by the relevant divisional Associate Dean; which reviewers agreed to write; and which reviewers declined (with a summary of their reason for declining). In addition, please include: (1) a copy of the sample letter sent to external reviewers; and (2) a copy of all e-mail and paper correspondence from prospective reviewers (both acceptances and declines).
  12. a report, prepared by the department committee, that includes reports on classroom observations as well as analysis of all of the above data on teaching—when the position requires teaching. Teaching includes advising duties, so please do not omit an assessment of advising when you address this category. Number and kinds of advisees will be specified.  The report will also assess the candidate's research (when research is required) and service to the department, the University, the profession, and the Commonwealth; and discuss the record of the candidate in in other areas in which the position requires contributions.
  13. A chair’s letter that includes a summary of the evaluation process and department deliberations, including the documented vote on promotion. The Chair will state the major reasons why the department voted as it did, explaining and summarizing the discussion during the promotion review meeting. The Chair will also provide his/her own assessment of the candidate, including the candidate's strengths and weaknesses and the Chair's reasons for voting one way or the other.

Ian Baucom, Dean
College and Graduate School of Arts & Sciences