2.4 Faculty Evaluation

In order to assure equity in evaluating members of the faculty being reviewed in consideration of reappointment, promotion in rank, and salary adjustments, the faculty, in cooperation with the administration and the Board of Trustees, has adopted the following Evaluation Criteria and Procedures.

In its efforts to promote and maintain the highest possible standards among the faculty, the College will be guided solely by them in the evaluation of faculty members. In order to preserve their authority, a Grievance Procedure has been established (See section 2.5.)

2.4.1 Tenure and Promotion Committee
2.4.2 Criteria for Evaluation
2.4.3 General Evaluation Policies
2.4.4 Faculty Mentoring
2.4.5 Pre-tenure Review (Tenure Track)
2.4.6 Tenure (Appointment without Limit)
2.4.7 First Post-Tenure Review (2017)
2.4.8 Faculty Performance Review
2.4.9 Promotion to Full Professor
2.4.10 Interdisciplinary Appointments
2.4.11 Review Procedures for Joint Appointments
2.4.12 Visiting Appointments Full-Time
2.4.13 Limited Appointments Part-Time

2.4.1 Tenure and Promotion Committee

(approved May 1995, amended 2004)

The Tenure and Promotion Committee serves as an evaluating body for the pre-tenure review, tenure, and promotion. Its responsibility is to ensure that the review process is fair and that the final recommendation is based on sound documentation.

The Tenure and Promotion Committee shall not operate as a means of reallocating College positions or other resources. Each review stands on its own merits and will not be affected by other reviews.

The Committee's functions include reading dossiers, as gathered by the Associate Provost in accordance with faculty legislation, and making a recommendation to the President. That recommendation is based strictly on the three evaluation criteria listed in the Faculty Handbook. (See section 2.4.2.) The Tenure and Promotion Committee's conclusions should be substantiated by direct reference to material in those dossiers. Other mechanisms of faculty evaluation are unchanged by this legislation.

At the conclusion of its deliberations, the Tenure and Promotion Committee makes a written recommendation to the President for or against pre-tenure, tenure, or promotion. The recommendation will reflect both majority and minority opinions as part of its rationale. The vote is also reported, without individual attribution. Copies of the recommendation are sent to the President and the Provost. After the Board of Trustees has made its decision, a copy of the TPC letter is sent to the faculty member under review.

The procedures and recommendation of the Tenure and Promotion Committee are separate from the administrative role of the Provost. The Provost makes a separate recommendation to the President.

Members: Seven tenured faculty, including one from each academic division. The Provost is a non-voting member whose primary role is to clarify issues found in the dossier. Members are elected according to the procedures for standing committees, but for three-year staggered terms. The Executive Committee will offer a slate of nominees with separate votes for each divisional representative and for the three members at large. Membership will include at least two men and two women and normally no more than one person from any department. Committee members will abstain as best they can from writing letters of evaluation during their tenure. The chair of the committee shall be a full professor, selected by the committee, who has had at least one year of prior experience on TPC.

Members recuse themselves when the committee is evaluating a colleague from their own department or a close relative. When this proviso affects the chair, another member of the committee serves as acting chair for that single deliberation. If, after recusals, the committee includes no member from the academic division of the faculty member being reviewed, then an eligible faculty member from that division will be appointed by the chair of the committee and the Provost to serve as the divisional representative on the committee for that single deliberation.

It is understood that members of the Tenure and Promotion Committee keep committee deliberations and all information contained in evaluation dossiers strictly confidential.

2.4.2 Criteria for Evaluation

(amended March 1999, 9/2018) (begins 2019-20 ACADEMIC YEAR)

Kenyon College faculty members are evaluated by reference to three criteria. Teaching Excellence is the sine qua non for retention and advancement at the College. The College expects this excellence to be complemented by achievement in two auxiliary areas. First, it expects its faculty members to practice an ongoing engagement in their scholarly or artistic work. Second, it expects faculty members to display a collegiate citizenship that manifests itself through participation in the life of the College and/or community. Scholarly or Artistic Engagement is valuable because it fosters intellectual liveliness, assures that faculty members remain current with aspects of their fields or disciplines, provides opportunities for collaborative scholarship with students, and promotes the reputation of the College. Collegiate Citizenship is valuable because it is the foundation of successful faculty governance and a source of community vitality. Woven into each of these criteria is a commitment to fostering an open, respectful, supportive, accessible, and inclusive community of learners.

As a diverse community with many needs, the College relies on its faculty to demonstrate excellence across these areas, which in reality are linked in many ways. (See also Section 2.4.5.) The lists which follow each guideline are meant to aid in interpretation of these criteria by providing examples of appropriate activities. The lists are not exclusive.

Teaching Excellence: Kenyon faculty members are expected to strive for excellence in teaching. Nothing can extenuate poor teaching. Kenyon College exists to provide effective instruction. Successful pedagogy is based on expertise in a particular subject matter and on a commitment to the craft of teaching. An individual matures into an effective teacher with experience and reflection. They convey excitement about their discipline and about learning in general, and they foster respect for the liberal arts.

Because teaching is the most important criterion for evaluating faculty excellence, these seven items are essential. Faculty members under review should meet or exceed expectations in Teaching Excellence through achievement in these areas.

Scholarly competence and familiarity with current developments in one's field;
Thorough, imaginative, and responsive course planning and preparation for individual classroom, laboratory, and studio sessions that engage a broad range of students from the novice to the advanced learner;
Effective lecture presentations, discussion leadership, and tutorial guidance that are based on clear pedagogical goals for the course;
Timely, meticulous, and fair review and evaluation of student work;
Promotion of a collegial environment that encourages students to engage in independent, creative, and critical thinking and in the open exchange of ideas while learning to see the world in new ways
Promotion of an inclusive classroom environment that values diversity, takes into consideration students from a broad variety of backgrounds and learning styles and challenges students to their best efforts
Availability and effective guidance to students, supporting those assigned as advisees or enrolled in one's classes, and other students in our intellectual community.

The following items are neither a substitute for the above nor a requirement to obtain high evaluations; they are, however, examples of valuable teaching and advising opportunities that faculty might pursue. Some of the following items may also be considered under the two auxiliary categories of Scholarly or Artistic Engagement, and/or Collegiate Citizenship. It is up to the faculty member to describe their work and achievements in these expanded areas of teaching, and the auxiliary categories, in their review prospectus when applicable.

Examples of activities include but are not limited to:

Additional advising and mentoring roles, such as working with students on summer scholarship or long-term projects, helping with internship placements or national fellowship and scholarship applications, career advising, and on research and publication
Teaching and advising activities associated with Kenyon initiatives, such as the Kenyon Educational Enrichment Program and Community Engaged Learning
Development and implementation of pedagogy, including team teaching, interdisciplinary teaching, high-impact practices, or global outreach
Involvement in Center for Innovative Pedagogy programs, membership on faculty learning groups, etc.

Scholarly or Artistic Engagement: Scholarly or artistic engagement must be ongoing. Projects may change, and the pace of activity associated with them may vary. But because such engagement strengthens teaching, the College expects its faculty members to keep themselves professionally involved in the creative work of their discipline by the regular and disciplined pursuit of knowledge and the development of their skills. (As a supplement to the following collegiate criteria, each academic department and each interdisciplinary program which holds one or more faculty positions shall prepare guidelines that will indicate how the College standards apply in that particular discipline in regard to the collegiate criteria for scholarly and artistic engagement. These guidelines are to be in accord with the collegiate criteria and are to be submitted to the President and Provost for approval. Where one department contains more than one discipline, the department may submit guidelines for each discipline if it sees fit to do so. All members of the department are at least to be consulted in developing the guidelines. Each department and program will submit its guidelines for review to its outside evaluators.)

While all items in the list are valuable, the first is essential.

Active and effective participation in one's field, through publication, exhibition, or performance;
Active participation in scholarly or artistic discourse, through the presentation of invited lectures, conference papers or posters; or through other active scholarly involvement in conferences; or through the receipt of grants.
Active work with students on artistic, scholarly, or research projects that go beyond regular courses;
Development of interdisciplinary research
Development of scholarship aimed at improving pedagogy, for example, the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
Public scholarship, for example, consultant to state and national organizations, etc.
Exchange of information, ideas, and techniques with peers.
Acquisition of new skills or the pursuit of secondary fields of scholarly interest, including research, publication, lectures, and receipt of grants, etc..

Collegiate Citizenship: The faculty has a vital role to play in sustaining the intellectual life of the college through departmental/ admissions/alumni activities, collegiate governance, various activities that foster breadth in its cultural life, and extending the impact of the College beyond the bounds of the campus

While all items in the list are valuable, the first two have special importance.

Leadership in departmental or College governance;
Membership on committees established by the faculty, a department, or the College;
Attendance at faculty meetings;
Mentoring of junior colleagues;
Writing thorough and useful letters of evaluation;
Assistance in other important collegiate activities, such as student recruiting and alumni affairs;
Initiation of programs that strengthen the capacity of the College to fulfill its mission;
Contribution to programs that strengthen inclusivity, diversity or access to liberal education;
Involvement in the general life of the College, as evidenced by familiarity with fields and activities other than one's own and attendance at lectures, concerts, and exhibitions;
Contributions to the cultural, intellectual, and residential life of the Kenyon community, the local Knox County community, and other communities with which faculty may become involved.

2.4.3 General Evaluation Policies

The President and Trustees determine reappointments to the faculty, changes in appointment status, promotion in rank, and salary decisions based on formal evaluations conducted by the Provost. Informal discussions of a faculty member's performance with colleagues, including chairs, the President, and the Provost, are encouraged but do not have official status. Comments by a chair on the performance of members of a department included in the annual report to the President will be discussed with the faculty member concerned, but are not included in the dossier upon which decisions are based.

When faculty members or administrators are asked to act as evaluators, the Provost will remind them of the Criteria for Evaluation described in section 2.4.2. All evaluators will be asked to indicate in their letters which of the criteria is being addressed, and on what experience or knowledge their evaluation of the member is based.

Letters of Evaluation

Letters of evaluation are not ballots or votes. Each class of evaluators forms judgments based on different kinds of knowledge and experience. The College weighs each evaluation in the light of these differences.

All the information contained in the letters of evaluation will be held in complete confidence by the Associate Provost, the Provost, the President, and the Tenure and Promotion Committee, except as provided in the Grievance Procedure described in section 2.5 or as compelled by legal action.

Department Chairs Under Review

When the member being evaluated is a department chair, the responsibilities assigned to the chair will be assumed by the Provost, or delegated by the Provost to another member of the department.

Merit and the Timing of Reviews

(amended 1/2017, 1/2013)

Members on tenure-track appointments will normally undergo the Pre-Tenure Review in the third year and the Tenure Review in the sixth year. The evidence obtained in these reviews will also be used for promotion and salary decisions. The First Post-Tenure Review takes place in the tenth year (or its equivalent). In the thirteenth year (or its equivalent), the tenured faculty member will undergo either a Faculty Performance Review, or the Promotion to Full Professor Review. All subsequent post-tenure reviews must be scheduled once within the normal seven-year sabbatical cycle. When the member decides to stand for Full Professor, the Promotion Review takes the place of a Faculty Performance Review.

All reviews where merit pay is a possible outcome, including pre-tenure, tenure, post-tenure, and promotion, shall count teaching at 55 percent. Scholarship and artistic engagement shall count 30 percent, and college citizenship 15 percent. However, in view of the varying career patterns of individuals throughout their stays at Kenyon, it shall be permissible to increase the scholarship and artistic engagement count to 35 percent or to decrease it to 25 percent and, correspondingly, to increase the college citizenship count to 20 percent or to decrease it to 10 percent, the sum always being 100 percent. The corresponding increases and decreases in the scholarship and citizenship counts must be arranged in advance by agreement with and permission of the Provost. Only the dossier is to be evaluated and the merit standard is to be strictly adhered to. Merit decisions are to be entirely separate from administrative adjustments and the considerations relevant to them.

For all members undergoing the Pre-Tenure, the First Post-Tenure, and Faculty Performance Reviews, the merit pool budgeted each year shall be four percent of the salaries of those faculty up for such reviews. The lowest award possible for these reviews is to be zero, and the highest, two percentage points higher than the pools for these reviews. For all members undergoing the Tenure Review and the Promotion to Full Professor Review, the merit pool budgeted each year shall be six percent of the salaries of those faculties up for such reviews. The lowest award possible for these reviews is to be zero, and the highest, two percentage points higher than the pool for these reviews.

The Provost will compose a letter conveying the results of all First Post-Tenure Reviews and Faculty Performance Reviews. The letter will communicate the outcome of the review in the context of the proportions of weight that are given to teaching, scholarly engagement, and citizenship. Later, at the time of the Contract for Services, the faculty member will receive a letter indicating the percentage increase awarded.

2.4.4 Faculty Mentoring

(amended 10/12/2015, 11/5/2018)

The following is a summary of the mentoring program for tenure track faculty in their first and second years at Kenyon. A full description of the mentoring program is available from the Office of the Provost and will be distributed to new tenure track faculty at the beginning of their first and second academic years at Kenyon. The Faculty Affairs Committee will approve changes to the specific activities of the mentoring program.

Mentors are resource people who can help new colleagues understand the College and their department as well as build a broad network of support. Each new tenure-track faculty member will work with a Lead Mentor to organize a mentoring group. Typically, this group will be composed of their Lead Mentor, who shall serve as chair of the mentoring group, a tenured member of the department, and at least one other member of the faculty who may, but need not be a member of the same department or program and may be a faculty member who is not yet tenured. The Lead Mentor will assist the new member in selecting mentors with whom they feel comfortable and who will make a commitment to the process. The new faculty member should inform the Associate Provost of the group's membership by October 1. The mentoring group is responsible for providing regular feedback to the new faculty member in all three areas of evaluation: teaching, scholarship, and citizenship. The Lead Mentor is responsible for ensuring that mentoring activities are carried out as outlined in the mentoring guidelines available from the Office of the Provost. The new member is also welcome to initiate contact with mentors informally, finding opportunities to engage in discussions with them about syllabi and pedagogy, professional development and time management, dealing with difficult students, and positioning oneself for future reviews.

At the end of the first academic year, the committee will meet with the member to discuss their reflections on the year and goals and strategies for the upcoming year. A written summary of key points of this meeting will be prepared by the Lead Mentor and shared with their new colleague.

Summaries of course evaluations from the first semester and a curriculum vita will be available to the mentoring committee. After this meeting, both mentors and the new faculty member should fill out the Mentoring Program Evaluation Form, found on the Provosts’ website.

Mentoring in the Second Year: Mentoring activities continue during the second year with a particular focus on preparing for the new colleague’s pre-tenure review. The Lead Mentor and new colleague should meet prior to classes beginning to formalize their work plan for the year and review the Mentoring Program guidelines. At the end of the second year, the member will meet with the mentoring committee, which again has the benefit of seeing course evaluations and a curriculum vita. The purpose of the meeting will be to assess the member's growth and progress and to discuss the prospectus for the pre-tenure review. The Lead Mentor should draft a letter summarizing the activities and outcomes of the mentoring committee over the two years. After this meeting, both mentors and the new faculty member should fill out the Mentoring Program Evaluation Form, found on the Provosts’ website. The report will be due by June 1.

While the formal requirements of mentoring end after the second year, the need for effective mentoring does not. New faculty should, therefore, seek and cultivate mentors informally at least through the review for tenure.

2.4.5 Pre-tenure Review (Tenure-Track)

(See section 2.4.1, The Tenure and Promotion Committee)
(amended April 2006, admin adjustment April 2011, amended Sept 2011, April 2017, Jan 2018)

Faculty members serving under a regular tenure-track appointment are ordinarily reviewed for reappointment during their third year. This review will evaluate faculty performance in teaching, scholarship, and collegiate citizenship. Expectations will include evidence of excellence in teaching, of scholarly engagement in its formative stages, and of commitment to collegiate service.

The Review Dossier. The Associate Provost is responsible for compiling the dossier of materials upon which the review will be based. The material listed below constitutes the review dossier.

A. A current curriculum vitae and a prospectus (generally five single-spaced pages) written by the member describing past accomplishments and indicating anticipated contributions to the department and the College in the future.

B. The departmental letter. The department chair will convene a meeting to discuss the drafting of a departmental letter. All tenured and tenure-track members, except the member being discussed, will be invited to attend. The purpose of the letter is to provide a departmental overview of the member under review based on the established criteria of evaluation and especially with regard to the department's curriculum, goals, and standards. During the year before the meeting, at least four department members will see the faculty member teach at least once. Department members will also see the summaries of the member's College Form evaluations. At least four members of the department will read the scholarship of the member under review and assess its relevance to the field. This assessment should make explicit its relationship to the scholarly guidelines of the department. Based on the discussion in the meeting, the department chair will draft the letter. It should reflect the opinions of all the participants in the meeting. It may or may not make a specific recommendation. After drafting the letter, the chair will circulate it among the tenured and tenure-track members of the department for their approval and signature.

C. Faculty member response to departmental letter (optional). The Office of the Provost will electronically share a copy of the departmental letter with the faculty member under and will send a hard copy via campus mail. If the faculty member would like to make a written response, the response is due by the deadline specified in The Procedure section. The deadline is firm, and if missed there will be no extension. A response is purely optional and the existence of this option does not imply an expectation for a response. Should the faculty member choose to respond, this response should generally be limited to addressing any perceived factual errors or omissions, perceived procedural issues, or perceived interpretive issues. This letter has a maximum length of two pages, single-spaced. No additional documents can be added to the review unless requested by the Provost or the TPC.

D. Letters of evaluation. In requesting letters of evaluation, the Associate Provost will include with the written request a copy of the Criteria for Evaluation (see section 2.4.2). For faculty evaluators and evaluators outside the College, the Associate Provost will also include the current curriculum vitae and prospectus provided by the faculty member.

The Associate Provost will request letters from the following groups of persons:

Four letters of evaluation—three from colleagues in the member’s department and one from a colleague outside the department. The member will submit the names of two faculty colleagues, at least one of whom must be from within the member’s department, to the Associate Provost. From amongst these two, the member may (but need not) designate the evaluator whose letter will focus on scholarly or artistic engagement, and may (but need not) designate the evaluator from outside the department. The Associate Provost will choose the other two faculty evaluators. Letters from all four evaluators are needed to complete the dossier.

In order to provide a specific evaluation of excellence in teaching and scholarly or artistic engagement, all three faculty evaluators from the member’s department are expected to see the faculty member teach at least once in the year of the review, and are also expected to read the scholarship or view or read the creative work of the member under review and assess its relevance to the field.

One of the letter writers will be chosen to focus in particular on scholarly or artistic engagement. The three letters from colleagues in the member’s department should address all three criteria of evaluation. Therefore if the person chosen to focus on scholarly or artistic engagement is a colleague in the member’s department, they will have an enhanced obligation to address that criterion, but will also address the other two criteria of evaluation. If the person chosen to focus on scholarly or artistic engagement is from outside the department, then they will primarily address that criterion.
Ten students, with mailing and email addresses, chosen by the member. Ten students who have enrolled in courses taught by the member since the last review, selected by the Provost. At least eight letters are required to complete the dossier, at least two of which must be from students selected by the Provost.

E. The Provost's letter of recommendation to the President and Provost's statement sent to the faculty member summarizing the evaluation of their last review, as well as the Tenure and Promotion Committee letter if the last review was either a Tenure or Promotion review.

F. A record, composed by the Provost, summarizing the faculty member's appointments at Kenyon, including academic rank and any previous decisions bearing on reappointment.

G. Course evaluations (College Form, See section 1.1.2) covering the period of the current review.

Other Materials. In addition, it is the responsibility of the faculty member under review to provide to department members and others writing letters of evaluation any other evidence the member thinks relevant, such as self-designed course evaluations, syllabi, publications, published and unpublished reviews of the faculty member's work or performance, and letters from individuals outside the College with relevant special knowledge. Usually, this material is placed in an electronic repository available to reviewers by October 15. Faculty members may make other arrangements as long as they clearly communicate these arrangements to their evaluators. Note that these materials are not part of the review dossier.

The Procedure. Before September 1, the Associate Provost will meet with those eligible for a pre-tenure review and with their department chairs to discuss the procedure. If the faculty member wishes to postpone the review, they should inform the Associate Provost in writing before October 1.

Vitae, prospectus, and names of evaluators are due in the Office of the Provost by October 15. Assuming all lists of potential evaluators have been provided by October 15, the Associate Provost will mail all requests for evaluations before November 1.

By December 15, the Associate Provost will inform the department chair which materials and letters from the evaluators chosen by the member have not been received. It is the responsibility of the Associate Provost and the chair to take steps to ensure that the required minimum number of written evaluations from students and faculty members has been received by the Associate Provost by January 2. The faculty member is not responsible for securing letters.

All materials for the review dossier should be collected in the Office of the Provost by January 2 (with the only exception being the optional faculty member written response to the departmental letter). If the Provost or the Tenure and Promotion Committee judges the dossier to be an inadequate basis for review, additional information will be sought. The Provost may use whatever sources are necessary to collect this information, but all of it must be represented in the dossier in writing. In the case of oral interviews, the Provost will place in the dossier a written summary of the interview signed by the interviewee.

The Office of the Provost will electronically share a copy of the departmental letter with the faculty member under review by January and will send a hard copy via campus mail. The optional faculty member written response to the departmental letter must be submitted electronically to the Office of the Provost. It is due by January 15, and at that point the dossier is complete.

The Tenure and Promotion Committee will review the dossier and at the conclusion of its deliberations will make a written recommendation to the President for or against reappointment. The recommendation will reflect both majority and minority opinions as part of its rationale. The vote is also reported, without individual attribution. A copy of the recommendation is sent to the Provost.

By April 15, the Provost will submit the member's dossier and a written recommendation concerning appointment and salary to the President for decision.

The Committee on Faculty and Curriculum of the Board of Trustees deliberates about the recommendation at its meeting on campus in late April. Shortly after that meeting, the member can expect a telephone call from the Provost with an oral report on the decision.

The President's decision will be given in writing to the faculty member and the department chair before the end of the first week in May. At that time, the member also receives a copy of the recommendation letter from the Tenure and Promotion Committee. Salary issues will be reflected in the Contract for Services sent to the faculty member in May. The letter from the President constitutes formal notice of reappointment, but it is binding upon both parties only after the Contract for Services has been duly executed.

2.4.6 Tenure (Appointment without Limit)

(amended April 2017, April 2007, Sept 2011, Dec 2015, Jan 2018)

Ordinarily in the sixth year of service, or earlier in the case of prior experience, faculty members become eligible to stand for review for Tenure (Appointment Without Limit). Tenure requires demonstrated excellence in the faculty member's discipline and promise of future contributions to the College of a high order. The granting of tenure constitutes the most serious commitment the College makes to a faculty member and must be based on the expectation that the faculty member will continue a high level of performance throughout the years of service. The evaluation process thus draws upon the appraisals of more persons than in the previous review. Within that broader range of opinion, evaluations written by those in the member's department are of major importance.

The Review Dossier. The Associate Provost is responsible for compiling the dossier of materials upon which the review will be based. The material listed below constitutes the review dossier.

A. A current curriculum vitae and a prospectus (generally five single-spaced pages) written by the member describing past accomplishments and indicating anticipated contributions to the department and the College in the future.

B. The departmental letter. The department chair will convene a meeting to discuss the drafting of a departmental letter. All tenured and tenure-track members, except the member being discussed, will be invited to attend. The purpose of the letter is to provide a departmental overview of the member under review, based on the established criteria of evaluation and especially with regard to the department's curriculum, goals, and standards. During the year before the meeting, at least four department members will see the faculty member teach at least once. Department members will also see the summaries of the member's College Form evaluations. At least four members of the department will read the scholarship of the member under review and assess its relevance to the field. This assessment should make explicit its relationship to the scholarly guidelines of the department. Based on the discussion in the meeting, the department chair will draft the letter. It should reflect the opinions of all the participants in the meeting. It may or may not make a specific recommendation. After drafting the letter, the chair will circulate it among the tenured and tenure-track members of the department for their approval and signature.

C. Faculty member response to departmental letter (optional). The Office of the Provost will electronically share a copy of the departmental letter with the faculty member under review, and will send a hard copy via campus mail. If the faculty member would like to make a written response, the response is due by the deadline specified in The Procedure section. The deadline is firm, and if missed there will be no extension. A response is purely optional and the existence of this option does not imply an expectation for a response. Should the faculty member choose to respond, this response should generally be limited to addressing any perceived factual errors or omissions, perceived procedural issues, or perceived interpretive issues. This letter has a maximum length of two pages, single spaced. No additional documents can be added to the review dossier, unless requested by the Provost or the TPC.

D. Letters of evaluation. In requesting letters of evaluation, the Associate Provost will include with the written request a copy of the Criteria for Evaluation (see section 2.4.2) as well as the current curriculum vitae and prospectus provided by the faculty member. The Associate Provost will request letters from the following groups of persons:

In order to provide a specific evaluation of excellence in teaching and scholarly or artistic engagement, all three faculty evaluators from the member’s department are expected to see the faculty member teach at least once in the year of the review, and are also expected to read the scholarship or view or read the creative work of the member under review and assess its relevance to the field.

One of the four letter writers will be chosen to focus in particular on scholarly or artistic engagement. The three letters from colleagues in the member’s department should address all three criteria of evaluation. Therefore if the person chosen to focus on scholarly or artistic engagement is a colleague in the member’s department, they will have an enhanced obligation to address that criterion, but will also address the other two criteria of evaluation. If the person chosen to focus on scholarly or artistic engagement is from outside the department, then they will primarily address that criterion.

2. Ten students, with mailing and email addresses, chosen by the member. Ten students who have enrolled in courses taught by the member since the last review, selected by the Provost. At least eight letters are required to complete the dossier, at least two of which must be from the students selected by the Provost.

3. Three evaluators from outside the College. The candidate submits five names and addresses, along with a rationale for each selection. The rationale should provide a brief description of the expertise of the external reviewers, and should explain the nature and extent of the member's relationship with them, so that TPC members will be aware of this context when reading the external evaluations of scholarly/artistic engagement. Candidates should not nominate evaluators with whom they share close personal relationships, who have served as their direct supervisors, or with whom they have closely collaborated on a creative or scholarly project since their last review. The Associate Provost selects three outside evaluators from whom to solicit letters. Three letters are required to complete the dossier. Any questions about this process should be directed to the Associate Provost.

F. A record, composed by the Provost, summarizing the faculty member's appointments at Kenyon, including academic rank and any previous decisions bearing on reappointment.

G. Course evaluations (College Form, See section 1.1.2) covering the period of the current review.

Other Materials. In addition, it is the responsibility of the faculty member under review to provide to department members and others writing letters of evaluation any other evidence the member thinks relevant, such as self-designed course evaluations, syllabi, prior review letters, publications, published and unpublished reviews of the faculty member's work or performance, and letters from individuals outside the College with relevant special knowledge. Usually, this material is placed in an electronic repository available to reviewers by September 15. Faculty members may make other arrangements as long as they clearly communicate these arrangements to their evaluators. Note that these materials are not part of the review dossier.

The Procedure. In May preceding the review, the Associate Provost will meet with those eligible to be reviewed for tenure and their department chairs to discuss the procedure. If the faculty member wishes to postpone the review, they should inform the Associate Provost in writing before September 1.

Vitae, prospectus, and names of evaluators are due in the Office of the Provost office by September 1. The member should also supply three copies of a representative sample of scholarly or artistic work to be sent to the outside evaluators. Assuming all lists of potential evaluators have been provided by September 1, the Associate Provost will mail all requests for evaluations by September 15.

By October 15, the Associate Provost will inform the department chair which materials and letters from the evaluators chosen by the member have not been received. It is the responsibility of the Associate Provost and the chair to take steps to ensure that the required minimum number of written evaluations from students, faculty members, and outside evaluators have been received by the Associate Provost by November 1. The faculty member is not responsible for securing letters.

All materials for the review dossier should be collected in the Office of the Provost by November 1 (with the only exception being the optional faculty member written response to the departmental letter). If the Provost or the Tenure and Promotion Committee judges the dossier to be an inadequate basis for review, additional information will be sought. The Provost may use whatever sources are necessary to collect this information, but all of it must be represented in the dossier in writing. In the case of oral interviews, the Provost will place in the dossier a written summary of the interview signed by the interviewee.

The Office of the Provost will electronically share a copy of the departmental letter with the faculty member under review by November 7, and will send a hard copy via campus mail. The optional faculty member written response to the departmental letter must be submitted electronically to the Office of the Provost. It is due by November 15, and at that point the dossier is complete.

The faculty member under review will receive a letter of intent in March in place of a Contract for Services. Any changes in the terms of the faculty member's appointment resulting from the review will be reflected in the Contract for Services to be issued at the end of the review process. By April 15, the Provost will submit the member's dossier and a written recommendation concerning appointment , promotion, and salary, to the President for decision.

In the process of reviewing the dossier, the President may consult with the Provost, the department chair, the chair of the Tenure and Promotion Committee and the faculty member concerning information contained in the dossier, as necessary. The President may also request the Provost to seek additional information. Any additional testimony or information supplied by the Provost at the President's request must be represented in the dossier in writing. The Committee on Faculty and Curriculum of the Board of Trustees deliberates about the recommendation at its meeting on campus in late April. Shortly after that meeting, the member can expect a telephone call from the President with an oral report on the decision.

The President's decision will be given in writing to the faculty member and the department chair before the end of May. At that time, the member also receives a copy of the recommendation letter from the Tenure and Promotion Committee. In the event of reappointment, the President's letter will also refer to matters of promotion. Salary issues will be reflected in the Contract for Services sent to the faculty member in May. The letter from the President constitutes formal notice of reappointment, but it is binding upon both parties only after the Contract for Services has been duly executed.

2.4.7 First Post-Tenure Review (2017)

(amended Jan 2018)

After tenure, ordinarily, in the tenth year, faculty members undergo the First Post-Tenure Review, in order to assess their early progress as newly tenured members of the faculty, as well as their progress towards the Promotion to Full Professor Review (2.4.9).

The Review Dossier. The material listed below constitutes the review dossier and is the only material viewed by the Provost.

A. A current curriculum vitae and a prospectus (limited to five single-spaced pages) written by the member describing current and anticipated contributions to the department and the college. The prospectus should include information helpful for an assessment of excellence in the three areas specific to the Criteria for Evaluation (teaching excellence, scholarly or artistic engagement, and collegiate citizenship) since the most recent review.

B. The Provost's letter of recommendation to the President and Provost's statement sent to the faculty member summarizing the evaluation of their last review, as well as the Tenure Review letter from TPC.

C. Letters of evaluation. In requesting letters of evaluation, the Associate Provost will include with the written request a copy of the Criteria for Evaluation (see section 2.4.2) as well as the current curriculum vitae and prospectus provided by the faculty member. The Associate Provost will request letters from the following groups of persons:

In order to provide a specific evaluation of excellence in teaching and scholarly or artistic engagement, both faculty evaluators from the member’s department are expected to see the faculty member teach at least once in the year of the review, and are also expected to read the scholarship or view or read the creative work of the member under review and assess its relevance to the field.

One of the three letter writers will be chosen to focus in particular on scholarly or artistic engagement. The two letters from colleagues in the member’s department should address all three criteria of evaluation. Therefore if the person chosen to focus on scholarly or artistic engagement is a colleague in the member’s department, they will have an enhanced obligation to address that criterion, but will also address the other two criteria of evaluation. If the person chosen to focus on scholarly or artistic engagement is from outside the department, then they will primarily address that criterion.

2. Five students, with mailing and email addresses, chosen by the member. Five students who have enrolled in courses taught by the member since the last review, selected by the Provost. At least five letters are required to complete the dossier, at least one of which must be from students selected by the Provost.

D. Summaries of the College Form (See section 1.1.2) covering the period of the current review.

Other Materials. In addition, it is the responsibility of the faculty member under review to provide to the letter writers any other evidence the member thinks relevant, such as self-designed course evaluations, syllabi, prior review letters, publications, published or unpublished reviews of the faculty member's work or performance, and letters from individuals outside the College with relevant special knowledge. Usually, this material is made available to colleagues by February 1. Faculty members should clearly communicate the location of these materials to their evaluators. Note that these materials are not part of the review dossier.

The Procedure. The Associate Provost meets with those undergoing the First Post-Tenure Review in November of the school year in which the review is scheduled to discuss and clarify the procedures.

By January 15, the member will submit the curriculum vitae and prospectus to the Office of the Provost along with the names of three faculty colleagues to serve as evaluators. The member may (but need not) choose the evaluator whose letter will focus on scholarly or artistic engagement, and may (but need not) choose the evaluator outside the department. The Associate Provost will solicit letters from two persons on the list and one other, who may or may not be on the list. Letters from two colleagues inside the department and one outside the department are needed to complete the dossier. Copies of the faculty member's curriculum vitae , prospectus, and the criteria of evaluation will be sent to evaluators by February 1. The Office of the Provost supplies the other materials in the dossier.

The review dossier should be complete by March 1. If the Provost judges the dossier to be an inadequate basis for review, additional information will be sought. Any additional information must be represented in the dossier in writing. The Provost might request, for example, that letters of evaluation deemed inadequate be rewritten. In all cases of requests for additional information, the Chair of the reviewee’s department will be consulted.

By May 1, the Provost will provide the faculty member and the Department Chair with his/her report of the evaluation, normally between 1 - 2 single-spaced pages. After writing the report of the evaluation, the Provost will make a written recommendation to the President regarding salary for final approval.

The faculty member will receive a letter of intent in March indicating the standard salary increase. Any merit adjustments of the faculty member's salary based on the First Post-Tenure Review will be reflected in a letter sent before the Contract for Services is issued in May. The review dossier and the Provost’s report become a permanent part of the faculty member's personnel file maintained in the Office of the Provost.

If the member being reviewed refuses to cooperate in the review (e.g., by failing to submit lists or to prepare a prospectus), the review shall nevertheless proceed, with the Provost compensating for the omissions where possible and including a statement in the review dossier and the Provost’s report that explains omissions and procedural adjustments.

2.4.8 Faculty Performance Review

(amended April 2017, March 2007, Sept 2011, Jan 2018)

Performance reviews of tenured faculty members serve three purposes. The evaluation provides the grounds for adjustments of salary. Regular reviews also identify strengths and weaknesses in a faculty member's performance that can guide the faculty member in making important professional decisions. Finally, the College has an interest in assessing the continuing excellence of the faculty member's teaching, research, and service. Evaluation will be based on those three criteria and in the proportions stated under Criteria for Evaluation (See section 2.4.2).

Performance reviews take place once during each of the seven-year intervals related to the member's eligibility for sabbatical leaves, normally in the fifth year of that cycle. Anticipated faculty performance reviews should be discussed, at the initiation of the faculty member or the Associate Provost, six months prior to the beginning of the review process.

The review for promotion to Full Professor replaces the FPR in that sabbatical cycle.

The Review Dossier . The material listed below constitutes the review dossier and is the only material viewed by the Provost.

A. A current curriculum vitae and prospectus generally five single-spaced pages written by the member describing accomplishments in teaching, scholarship, and service since the most recent review, and indicating anticipated contributions to the department and the College in the future. The prospectus should include information helpful for an assessment of excellence in teaching, research, and service, and should also discuss plans for the next sabbatical leave.

C. Letters of evaluation. In requesting letters of evaluation, the Associate Provost will include with the written request a copy of the Criteria for Evaluation (see section 2.4.2) as well as the current curriculum vitae and prospectus provided by the faculty member.
The Associate Provost will request letters from the following groups of persons:

1. Three letters of evaluation—two from colleagues in the member’s department and one from a colleague outside the department. The member will submit the names of two faculty colleagues, at least one of whom must be from within the member’s department, to the Associate Provost. From amongst these two, the member may (but need not) designate the evaluator whose letter will focus on scholarly or artistic engagement, and may (but need not) designate the evaluator from outside the department. The Associate Provost will choose a third faculty evaluator. Letters from all three evaluators are needed to complete the dossier.

In order to provide a specific evaluation of excellence in teaching and scholarly or artistic engagement, both faculty evaluators from the member’s department are expected to see the faculty member teach at least once in the year of the review, and are also expected to read the scholarship or view or read the creative work of the member under review and assess its relevance to the field.

One of the three letter writers will be chosen to focus in particular on scholarly or artistic engagement. The two letters from colleagues in the member’s department should address all three criteria of evaluation. Therefore if the person chosen to focus on scholarly or artistic engagement is a colleague in the member’s department, they will have an enhanced obligation to address that criterion, but will also address the other two criteria of evaluation. If the person chosen to focus on scholarly or artistic engagement is from outside the department, then they will primarily address that criterion.

D. Summaries of the College Form (See section 1.1.2) covering the period of the current review.

Other Materials. In addition, it is the responsibility of the faculty member under review to provide to department members and others writing letters of evaluation any other evidence the member thinks relevant, such as self-designed course evaluations, syllabi, prior review letters, publications, published or unpublished reviews of the faculty member's work or performance, and letters from individuals outside the College with relevant special knowledge. Usually, this material is placed in an electronic repository available to reviewers by October 15. Faculty members may make other arrangements as long as they clearly communicate these arrangements to their evaluators. Note that these materials are not part of the review dossier.

The Procedure. The Associate Provost meets with those undergoing an FPR in August of the school year in which the review is scheduled to discuss and clarify the procedures.

By October 1, the member will submit the curriculum vitae and prospectus to the Office of the Provost along with the names of two faculty colleagues to serve as evaluators. Copies of the faculty member's curriculum vitae, prospectus, and the criteria of evaluation will be sent to evaluators by October 15. The Office of the Provost supplies the other materials in the dossier.

The review dossier should be complete by December 1. If the Provost judges the dossier to be an inadequate basis for review, additional information will be sought. Any additional information must be represented in the dossier in writing. The Provost might request, for example, that letters of evaluation deemed inadequate be rewritten. In all cases of requests for additional information, the chair of the reviewee's department will be consulted.

By April 15 the Provost will provide the faculty member with a report of the evaluation, normally between 1 - 2 single-spaced pages.

The faculty member will receive a letter of intent in March indicating the standard salary increase. Any merit adjustments of the faculty member's salary based on the performance review will be reflected in a letter sent before the Contract for Services is issued in May. The review dossier and the final report become a permanent part of the faculty member's personnel file maintained in the Office of the Provost.

If the member being reviewed refuses to cooperate in the review (e.g., by failing to submit lists or to prepare a prospectus), the review shall nevertheless proceed, with the Provost compensating for the omissions where possible and including a statement in the review dossier and the final report that explains omissions and procedural adjustments.

2.4.9 Promotion to Full Professor

(amended April 2017, April 2007, Sept 2011, Dec 2015, Jan 2018)

Full Professor represents the highest faculty rank the College confers. It rests upon demonstrated excellence in teaching, scholarly or artistic engagement, and citizenship sustained over a substantial period of time and the achievement of recognition both within the College and the profession as a whole. Because of the seriousness of the College commitment involved, promotion to Professor is similar in its importance to the awarding of tenure.

Those faculty whose accomplishments are truly exceptional, both within the College and within their scholarly or artistic fields, may stand for promotion to Full Professor in the seventh year in rank as Associate Professor. Except in unusual circumstances, associate professors who sustain excellence in teaching, scholarship, and citizenship over a substantial period of time can expect to stand for promotion by their twelfth year in rank as Associate Professor.

The Review Dossier . The Associate Provost is responsible for compiling the dossier of materials upon which the review will be based. The material listed below constitutes the review dossier.

B. The departmental letter. The department chair will convene a meeting to discuss the drafting of a departmental letter. All tenured and tenure-track members, except the member being discussed, will be invited to attend. The purpose of the letter is to provide a departmental overview of the member under review, based on the established criteria of evaluation and especially with regard to the department's curriculum, goals, and standards. During the year before the meeting, at least four department members will see the faculty member teach at least once. Department members will also see the summaries of the member's College Form evaluations. At least four members of the department will read the scholarship of the member under review and assess its relevance to the field. This assessment should make explicit its relationship to the scholarly guidelines of the department. Based on the discussion in the meeting, the department chair will draft the letter. It should reflect the opinions of all the participants in the meeting. It may or may not make a specific recommendation. After drafting the letter, the chair will circulate it among the tenured and tenure-track members of the department for their approval and signature.

C. Faculty member response to departmental letter (optional). The Office of the Provost will electronically share a copy of the departmental letter with the faculty member under review, and will send a hard copy via campus mail. If the faculty member would like to make a written response, the response is due by the deadline specified in The Procedure section. The deadline is firm, and if missed there will be no extension. A response is purely optional and the existence of this option does not imply an expectation for a response. Should the faculty member choose respond, this response should generally be limited to addressing any perceived factual errors or omissions, perceived procedural issues or perceived interpretive issues. This letter has a maximum length of two pages, single spaced. No additional documents can be added to the review dossier, unless requested by the Provost or the TPC.

D. Letters of evaluation. In requesting letters of evaluation, the Associate Provost will include with the written request a copy of the Criteria for Evaluation (see section 2.4.2) as well as the current curriculum vitae and prospectus provided by the faculty member. The Associate Provost will request letters from the following groups of persons:

1. Four letters of evaluation—three from colleagues in the member’s department and one from a colleague outside the department. The member will submit the names of two faculty colleagues, at least one of whom must be from within the member’s department, to the Associate Provost. From amongst these two, the member may (but need not) designate the evaluator whose letter will focus on scholarly or artistic engagement, and may (but need not) designate the evaluator from outside the department. The Associate Provost will choose the other two faculty evaluators. Letters from all four evaluators are needed to complete the dossier.

In order to provide a specific evaluation of excellence in teaching and scholarly or artistic engagement, all three faculty evaluators from the member’s department are expected to see the faculty member teach at least once in the year of the review, and are also expected to read the scholarship or view or read the creative work of the member under review and assess its relevance to the field.

One of the four letter writers will be chosen to focus in particular on scholarly or artistic engagement. The three letters from colleagues in the member’s department should address all three criteria of evaluation. Therefore if the person chosen to focus on scholarly or artistic engagement is a colleague in the member’s department, they will have an enhanced obligation to address that criterion, but will also address the other two criteria of evaluation. If the person chosen to focus on scholarly or artistic engagement is from outside the department, then they will primarily address that criterion.

F. A record, composed by the Provost, summarizing the faculty member's appointments at Kenyon, including academic rank and any previous decisions bearing on reappointment and promotion.

G. Course evaluations (College Form, See section 1.1.2) covering the period of the current review.

Other Materials. In addition, it is the responsibility of the faculty member under review to provide to department members and others writing letters of evaluation any other evidence the member thinks relevant, such as self-designed course evaluations, syllabi, prior review letters, publications, published and unpublished reviews of the faculty member's work or performance, and letters from individuals outside the College with relevant special knowledge. Usually, this material is placed in an electronic repository available to reviewers by March 15. Faculty members may make other arrangements as long as they clearly communicate these arrangements to their evaluators. Note that these materials are not part of the review dossier.

The Procedure . In January preceding the review, the Associate Provost will meet with those eligible to be reviewed for promotion and their department chairs to discuss the procedure. If the faculty member wishes to postpone the review, they should inform the Associate Provost in writing before March 1.

Vitae, prospectus, and names of evaluators are due in the Office of the Provost by March 1. The member should also supply three copies of a representative sample of scholarly or artistic work to be sent to the outside evaluators. Assuming all lists of potential evaluators have been provided by March 1, the Associate Provost will mail all requests for evaluations by March 15.

By May 15, the Associate Provost will inform the department chair which materials and letters from the evaluators chosen by the member have not been received. It is the responsibility of the Associate Provost and the chair to take steps to ensure that the required minimum number of written evaluations from students, faculty members, and outside evaluators have been received by the Associate Provost by June 1. The faculty member is not responsible for securing letters.

All materials for the review dossier should be collected in the Office of the Provost by June 1 (with the only exception being the optional faculty member written response to the departmental letter). If the Provost or the Tenure and Promotion Committee judge the dossier to be an inadequate basis for review, additional information will be sought. The Provost may use whatever sources are necessary to collect this information, but all of it must be represented in the dossier in writing. In the case of oral interviews, the Provost will place in the dossier a written summary of the interview signed by the interviewee.

The Office of the Provost will electronically share a copy of the departmental letter with the faculty member under review by June 7, and will send a hard copy via campus mail. The optional faculty member written response to the departmental letter must be submitted electronically to the Office of the Provost. It is due by June 15, and at that point the dossier is complete.

By October 15, the Provost will submit the member's dossier and a written recommendation concerning appointment , promotion, and salary, to the President for decision.

The Committee on Faculty and Curriculum of the Board of Trustees deliberates about the recommendation at its meeting on campus in late October. Shortly after that meeting, the member can expect a telephone call from the Provost with an oral report on the decision.

The President's decision will be given in writing to the faculty member and the department chair before November 1. Salary issues will be reflected in the Contract for Services sent to the faculty member in May. The letter from the President constitutes formal notice of promotion, but it is binding upon both parties only after the Contract for Services has been duly executed.

2.4.10 Interdisciplinary Appointments

Part I: General Principles

A. In general, the evaluation of persons holding interdisciplinary appointments will conform to ordinary practices. The candidate will retain all rights and opportunities afforded all persons being reviewed under the procedures set out in Section 2 of the Faculty Handbook. Further, persons holding interdisciplinary appointments will be evaluated in accordance with the three collegiate criteria of evaluation.

B. Given the unique character of these positions, however, the following two adjustments in the nature and structure of the departmental component of the evaluation process are deemed necessary:

The structure of an "acting department" as detailed in part II, below, will serve the role of the "department" in the evaluation of persons holding interdisciplinary appointments wherever "department" is mentioned in Section 2 of the Faculty Handbook.
The role of an "acting chair" as detailed in part II, below, will serve the role of "chair" wherever "chair" is mentioned in Section 2 of the Faculty Handbook.

Part II: "Departmental" Structure for the Purpose of Evaluation

A. In consultation with the interdisciplinary member under review and relevant faculty members associated with the member under review, the Provost will construct an "acting" department of between six and eight members for the sole purpose of evaluation. As is appropriate to the structure of each program and the specific terms of employment of the member, representative faculty from the following groups will be selected to serve as members of this "acting" department:

Faculty members who:

are currently team teaching or have team taught with the interdisciplinary member under review;
are currently teaching or have taught in the interdisciplinary program under the direction of the faculty member under review;
are currently cross-listing or have cross-listed courses with the interdisciplinary program under the direction of the faculty member under review;
are currently or have been members of a department with which the member has either a professional relationship (beyond the status of adjunct) or common research interests;
are currently or have been members of the Advisory Committee of the interdisciplinary program associated with the member under review.

B. As is the case when a chair of a department is being reviewed, the Provost in consultation with the Interdisciplinary member will select an "acting chair" for the sole purpose of coordinating the evaluation process as set out in Section 2 of the Faculty Handbook.

2.4.11 Review Procedures for Joint Appointments

(approved March 2002, amended 2004)

In general, the evaluation of persons holding joint appointments will conform to ordinary practices. A joint appointment is defined as a formal appointment in two different departments or interdisciplinary programs. The candidate will retain all rights and opportunities afforded all persons being reviewed under the procedures set out in Section 2 of the Faculty Handbook. Further, persons holding joint appointments will be evaluated in accordance with the three collegiate criteria of evaluation.

Given the unique character of these positions, however, the following adjustments in the nature and structure of the departmental component of the evaluation process are deemed necessary:

A. Two departments or interdisciplinary programs have an interest in participating in the review of a person holding a joint appointment. Ordinarily, one department or program will be chosen as the primary department or program and the other as the secondary department or program. The signed agreement specifying the member's responsibilities in each department should be included in all review dossiers.

B. In order to provide each department or program with an appropriate opportunity to represent its view of the performance of the person under review, the composition of the review dossier, except in the case of Faculty Performance Reviews, will be altered in the following ways:

1. Ordinarily, two members of the primary department or program and one member of the secondary department or program will be asked to write letters evaluating the faculty member under review.

2. Ordinarily, two members outside the primary and secondary departments or programs will be asked to submit letters, one will write on teaching the other on scholarly/creative activity.

3. In all other cases where department is mentioned in Section 2 of the Faculty Handbook, the department is comprised of the members of both the primary and secondary departments or programs. More specifically, in the Pretenure, Tenure, and Promotion reviews, all other tenured and tenure-track members of both departments or programs will meet together to discuss the drafting of a departmental letter and the completed letter will be circulated among these same members for their approval and signature.

C. Ordinarily, the chair of the primary department or program will serve as the chair wherever "chair" is mentioned in Section 2 of the Faculty Handbook.

2.4.12 Visiting Appointments Full-Time

Faculty serving under a Full-Time Visiting Appointment are expected to participate in departmental affairs in a manner similar to those holding regular appointments, though they ordinarily do not serve as faculty advisors to majors or participate in faculty reviews. Beginning in their second year, they may advise first-year students and serve on ad hoc committees or subcommittees, but they are not normally expected to stand for election to standing committees or to serve as advisors to organizations. The criteria for evaluating faculty members (Section 2.4.2) in these appointments are the same as those for faculty in regular appointments.

For reasons of personal or professional development, faculty members serving more than one year under a Visiting Appointment Full-Time may request evaluation at any time after the completion of their first year of service to the College. If faculty members serving under such an appointment are being considered for an extension of their Visiting Appointment, an evaluation should be conducted by the department. The department will conduct subsequent reviews at two-year intervals as needed. Visiting appointments may be extended for two (2) two-year terms, but total years of service to the College under Visiting Appointments may not exceed six years.

The Review Dossier. The Department Chair is responsible for compiling the dossier of materials upon which the review will be based. The material listed below constitutes the review dossier.

A. A current curriculum vitae and a prospectus (generally two to four pages) written by the member describing past accomplishments and indicating anticipated contributions to the department and the College in the future. Copies of the faculty member's curriculum vitae and prospectus must be made available to all department members.

B. Letters of evaluation. In requesting letters of evaluation, the Chair will include with the written request a copy of the Criteria for Evaluation (see section 2.4.2) as well as the current curriculum vitae and prospectus provided by the faculty member. In addition, evaluators shall be reminded of the expectations of visitors stated above. Moreover, the review dossier shall include a letter from the chair of the department, or such other person(s) as may be appropriate, which explains any special circumstances associated with the appointment, such as its being made late in the year or involving assignment to an unusual set of courses.

The Chair will request letters from the following groups of persons:

1. Three members of the department. The member will submit a list of four names to the Chair. The Chair will solicit letters from three persons on the list. To be complete, a dossier must have three letters from departmental colleagues.

2. Ten students with addresses and email contacts, chosen by the member. At least five student letters are required to complete the dossier.

C. Course evaluations (College Form, See section 1.1.2) covering the period of the current review.

Other Materials. In addition, it is the responsibility of the faculty member under review to provide to department members any other evidence the member thinks relevant, such as self-designed course evaluations, syllabi, publications, published or unpublished reviews of the faculty member's work or performance, and letters from individuals outside the College with relevant special knowledge. Usually, this material is placed on reserve in the department.

The Procedure. Early in the first semester, the chair will meet with the faculty member to discuss the review procedure. The chair should clarify the date by which the member should provide information for the dossier and the lists of proposed evaluators. When requesting letters of evaluation, the chair should remind evaluators of the criteria of evaluation and specify a due date. The chair should also inform the tenured and tenure-track members of the department of the date for the meeting to draft a departmental letter. After the review dossier has been completed, the chair and all members of the department holding regular appointments will meet to evaluate the dossier and formulate a letter that reflects the opinions of all those participating in the meeting.

The Departmental Letter. The department chair will convene a meeting to discuss the drafting of a departmental letter. All tenured and tenure-track members will be invited to attend. The purpose of the letter is to provide a departmental overview of the member under review, based on the established criteria of evaluation and especially with regard to the department's curriculum, goals, and standards. During the year before the meeting, at least three department members will see the faculty member teach at least once. Department members will also see the summaries of the member's College Form evaluations. Based on the discussion in the meeting, the department chair will draft the letter. It should reflect the opinions of all the participants in the meeting. It may or may not make a specific recommendation. After drafting the letter, the chair will circulate it among the tenured and tenure-track members of the department for their approval and signature.

By December 1, the chair will report the outcome of the review in a letter to the Provost. If this is a review for reappointment the letter should make a recommendation. After discussing this recommendation with the chair, the Provost will submit a written recommendation to the President concerning reappointment, as appropriate.

The President's decision will be given in writing to the member and to the chair of the member's Department. The member receives a copy of the departmental letter at this time. Salary issues will be reflected in the Contract for Services sent to the faculty member the following May.

2.4.13 Limited Appointments Part-Time

(amended April 2006)

Faculty members in Limited Appointments that are part-time are paid on a per-course basis and are not subject to the six-year (consecutive) maximum appointment limit. Faculty on part-time limited appointments are not expected to participate in departmental affairs, advise students, serve on committees (standing or ad hoc), or assume any other responsibilities not directly associated with their class or classes. Because of the special nature of these appointments, teaching excellence is the essential criterion for reappointment. If the member's achievements in scholarship and/or service are noteworthy, however, evaluators and the departmental letter should recognize these as well.

When faculty members serving under a Limited Appointment Part-time are considered for an extension of a multi-year contract, an evaluation will be conducted by the department in the penultimate year of the current contract.

The Review Dossier. The Department Chair is responsible for compiling the dossier of materials upon which the review will be based. The material listed below constitutes the review dossier.

B. Letters of evaluation. In requesting letters of evaluation, the Chair will include with the written request a reminder of the expectations for persons in part-time limited appointments as stated in the first paragraph of this section.

The Chair will request letters from the following groups of persons:

1. Three members of the department. The member will submit a list of four names to the Chair. The Chair will solicit letters from three persons on the list. To be complete, a dossier must have three letters from departmental colleagues.

2. Five students, with mailing and email addresses, chosen by the member. Five students who have enrolled in courses taught by the member since the last review, selected by the Provost. At least four letters are required to complete the dossier, at least one of which must be from students selected by the Provost.

C. Course evaluations (College Form, See section 1.1.2) covering the period of the current review.

Other Materials. In addition, it is the responsibility of the faculty member under review to provide to department members any other evidence the member thinks relevant, such as self-designed course evaluations, syllabi, publications, published and unpublished reviews of the faculty member's work or performance, and letters from individuals outside the College with relevant special knowledge. Usually, this material is placed on reserve in the department.

The Procedure. These reviews may be done anytime during the academic year that is convenient. At least a month before the review, the chair will meet with the faculty member to discuss the review procedure. The chair should specify the date by which the member should provide the chair the information for the dossier and the lists of potential evaluators. When requesting letters of evaluation, the chair should remind evaluators of the teaching criterion that applies to this review as set out in the first paragraph and should specify a due date. After the review dossier has been completed, the chair and all members of the department holding regular appointments will meet to evaluate the dossier and formulate a letter that reflects the opinions of all the participants in the meeting.

The department chair will convene a meeting to discuss the drafting of a departmental letter. All tenured and tenure-track members will be invited to attend. The purpose of the letter is to provide a departmental overview of the member under review, based on the criterion of teaching excellence and how the member's teaching furthers the department's curriculum, goals, and standards. If the member's scholarship or service have been noteworthy, the discussion should address these criteria as well. During the year before the meeting, at least three department members will see the faculty member teach at least once. Department members will also see the summaries of the member's College Form evaluations. Based on the discussion in the meeting, the department chair will draft the letter. It should reflect the opinions of all the participants in the meeting. It may or may not make a specific recommendation for reappointment. After drafting the letter, the chair will circulate it among the tenured and tenure-track members of the department for their approval and signature.

No more than two weeks after the meeting to formulate the departmental letter, the chair will report the outcome of the review in a letter to the Provost. If this is a review for reappointment, the letter should make a recommendation. After discussing this recommendation with the chair, the Provost will submit a written recommendation to the President concerning reappointment, as appropriate.

The President's decision will be given in writing to the member and to the chair of the member's department. The member receives a copy of the departmental letter at this time. Salary issues will be reflected in the Contract for Services sent to the faculty member the following May.