Foreword

Changes and amendments to this document shall be approved by Faculty Council by majority vote.

This is one of several documents outlining the policies and procedures to be followed in the College of Visual and Performing Arts for contractual renewal, promotion to associate professor with tenure, promotion to full professor, and promotion to the ranks of associate and full teaching professors in the College of Visual and Performing Arts. In as much as these policies and procedures bear heavily on the outcome of application for or appeal of promotion, tenure, and contractual renewal, it is cautioned that they be carefully observed.

Exact dates for submission of materials and committee action on the department/school and college levels shall be set in the fall semester of each academic year by the dean in compliance with the schedules set by the vice chancellor for academic affairs.

Each department or school within the college shall establish its procedures for mentoring full-time faculty, in accordance with overall college guidelines. It is the responsibility of each director or chair to ensure that each tenure-line faculty member has at least one faculty mentor, in consultation with the VPA Associate Deans. Consideration may be given to identifying a faculty mentor outside the unit as well as inside the unit, particularly when the faculty member’s research is cross-disciplinary in nature. Formal guidance on tenure and promotion policy and procedures shall be provided by the VPA Office of Academic Affairs. It is the general obligation of the senior faculty to inform tenure-track faculty of their professional responsibilities, assist in their integration into the college and respective department/school, and advise them of the expectations for promotion, tenure, and contractual renewal.

Candidates for promotion, tenure, and/or contractual renewal are responsible for familiarizing themselves with the policies and procedures, and gathering and submitting materials as outlined in these documents as appropriate.

Overview of Procedures for Annual Contractual Renewal and Post-Tenure Review

Full-time faculty members in the College of Visual and Performing Arts generally fall into one of five categories:

1. Instructors, who are in temporary, one or two-year appointments;

2. Tenure-track faculty;

3. Teaching professors;

4. Professors of practice; and

5. Tenured faculty members.

Annual contractual renewal applies to all but the tenured faculty members, but in slightly different ways to each group. Tenured faculty, who hold permanent appointment, are subject to post-tenure review instead of contractual renewal. Annual reviews for continuing full-time faculty members may be used to inform merit salary considerations.

1. Instructors are not subject to review and contractual renewal if on a single-year appointment. If on a multi-year appointment, their performance is reviewed and a recommendation is made with regard to continuation of their existing appointment.

2. Tenure-track faculty receive an initial three-year appointment, with an annual performance review and recommendation in years one and two, followed by a more extensive third-year review. A successful third-year review typically results in a second three-year appointment, with annual performance review and recommendation in years four and five, and the tenure review in year six. For exceptions, see the section on Third-Year Review below.

3. Teaching professors and professors of practice typically receive an initial three-year appointment, with an annual performance review and recommendation each year. In the spring of the final year of the appointment, the review typically results in renewal (a new three-year appointment), assuming the teaching need remains and strong performance continues on the part of the faculty member. Appointments of Professors of Practice are for periods of no more than five years and are renewable.

4. Tenured faculty hold permanent appointment, and therefore are not subject to contractual renewal. For purposes of merit salary consideration, their performance is reviewed each year.

Specific Procedures: Tenure-Track Faculty

Yearly Progress Reviews and Contractual Renewals during the Probationary Period

During the six-year probationary period, the candidate’s progress toward tenure will be reviewed each year in the areas of teaching and advising, creative/scholarly activities, and service. Teaching and advising will be given at least equal weight with creative/scholarly activities. Appropriateness of progress affects judgments of merit. A copy of the Annual Report and Recommendations on Non-Tenured Faculty (ARR) is available on the Provost’s website.

Expectations

As a research university, Syracuse University expects that faculty members will be actively engaged in an intellectual and creative life that enhances the knowledge base or otherwise extends the boundaries in their chosen areas of concentration. The University also has a tradition of permitting various allocations of effort across research and teaching. Schools and Colleges are expected to provide guidelines to all faculty regarding allocations of effort. In particular, Schools and Colleges must provide guidelines for those individuals whose teaching, research, and service do not sharply divide into distinct categories so that they can present integrated dossiers and accounts of activities. In VPA, the unit’s document on evidences for tenure and promotion should be provided to faculty members at the time of hire by the chair or director.

There are three kinds of reviews involving tenure-track faculty: annual, third-year, and sixth-year (tenure).

Annual Reviews: Years One and Two

Tenure-track faculty are normally given an initial three-year contract that takes them through the Third-Year Review. Thus, the purpose of the annual review process in years one and two is to affirm that appropriate progress is being made.

1. During the candidate’s first and second years they will undergo what are termed “Annual Reviews: Years One and Two.” In years one and two, the candidate’s department chair and department tenure committee evaluate the candidate’s performance in the areas of teaching and advising, creative/scholarly activities, and service, according to the unit’s written evidences for promotion to associate professor with tenure.

   1. The candidate will receive a summary narrative from the department chair/director that evaluates the candidate’s performance in the areas of teaching and advising, creative/scholarly activities, and service, both from the perspective of the tenure committee and of the chair/director.

   2. The information that forms the basis for the narrative will be taken from the candidate’s annual Curriculum Vitae Update Form in the Faculty Portfolio System (FPS) and its supporting documents supplied by the candidate, which may include any of the following as appropriate to the candidate’s specific discipline and the unit’s written evidences for tenure and promotion:

      1. Teaching Contribution

         1. Improvements in teaching and learning, curriculum, or course design, including new course preparation or significant revision from previous offering; participation in programs or conferences related to teaching; program or course assessment

         2. Advising students; thesis or dissertation supervision; additional student mentoring (graduate or undergraduate), including informal work with students or student groups; methods for assessing and improving your effectiveness

         3. Recognition and awards for teaching or advising, including any evidence of teaching effectiveness

         4. Integration of research into teaching

      2. Research, Creative, and Professional Activities: Work published, patent issued, recitals, and exhibitions during the calendar year of the review

         1. Recognition of published works

         2. Sponsorship of scholarly work

      3. Service to Department, College, University, Profession, and the Community

      4. Contributions to Creating a Campus Environment that is Welcoming to All

   3. The department’s narrative should make explicit references to the data supplied by the candidate (with sensitivity for the need to maintain confidentiality) and the standards by which data are evaluated.

2. The assessment contains specific references to accomplishments, reservations, and/or stipulations relating to each of the areas. Each assessment will include one of the following recommendations:

   1. Continue in current appointment with recognition of the following accomplishment(s);

   2. Continue in current appointment with recognition of the following accomplishment(s), reservation(s), and stipulation(s);

3. The assessment is recorded and placed in the candidate’s file in the Faculty Portfolio System. The file is open for examination by the candidate.

4. The candidate is apprised of the department’s assessment by the department chair/director in personal consultation.

5. The assessment is forwarded to the dean of the college, who after appraising it includes comments and forwards it (with comments) to the office of vice chancellor for academic affairs. In the event that revisions are recommended because of irrelevant, inappropriate or inadequate comments, no changes in the assessment can be made without notifying the department chair/director and candidate.

6. If the candidate dissents from the department/school’s appraisal of progress, resolution is sought in conference with the department chair/director.

7. Failure to reach agreement permits the candidate to appeal to the dean of the college.

8. If resolution is not reached with the dean and the candidate, the differences of opinion are attached, in writing, to the assessment and forwarded to the vice chancellor for academic affairs.

9. In the spring semester of Year Two, the candidate is informed by the department chair/director that they should begin preparing a more comprehensive set of materials for the Third-Year Review.

Third-Year Review

The third-year review is considered a dress rehearsal for the candidate’s sixth-year review. It provides the candidate with the opportunity of presenting a cumulative index of their progress toward tenure and to receive comprehensive feedback on their performance during three years of employment in the department. It is also the point at which the department/school determines that the candidate is making sufficient progress, thus enabling a recommendation for a new three-year appointment to take the candidate to the Sixth-Year Review (Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor). If sufficient progress is not being made, the Third-Year Review recommendation will make that clear and will provide the candidate with detailed feedback as to what is necessary to increase the likelihood of a successful Sixth-Year (tenure) review.

In October, third-year review candidates will receive an email invitation from the Faculty Portfolio System (FPS) to submit their materials. The deadline for the input of materials is December 15. Once the system is open for submission, candidates will be provided with a navigation aid in PDF form, with screenshots of the relevant pages and steps for upload.

1. Materials to be prepared for upload are as follows:

   1. CV – Include your full up-to-date CV, not a compilation of your CV updates.

   2. Personal Statement – Outline how you see your work in the three areas under review, with clearly identifiable headings: teaching philosophy/advising, scholarship/creative work, and service. Describe how your work in one area relates to the others. Discuss what vision or themes animate your work. Be sure to illuminate your effectiveness in each area. Include a brief forecasting statement for the next three years.

   3. Examples and Evidence – In one compiled PDF, with headings and bookmarks, provide examples and evidence of your work in each of the areas below:

      1. Scholarship:

         1. Exhibition, Performance of Publication Record (include your exhibition and/or performance record, or noting the quality of the venues; include a full list of your works, copies of representative works, and evidence supporting the quality of each work, i.e. reputation of the journal, journal’s acceptance rate, critiques or citations of the work; scholarly papers presented or addresses made at professional venues)

         2. Research & Support/Grants (include here support, such as faculty development, special faculty research awards, research study leaves or grants received)

         3. Citations/Other Reviews of Scholarship Creative Work

         4. Works in Progress (include here publications accepted but not yet published, or creative work accepted for future exhibition)

      2. Teaching:

         1. Courses Taught (include here a summary of all of the semester and summer session courses taught thus far)

         2. New Courses Introduced and Taught (courses not previously taught in your program prior to your having developed them)

         3. Evidence of Teaching Effectiveness

            1. Student Evaluations (include here your department’s formal evaluations of your courses each semester- both the complete data and student comments if both are used. If possible, provide a summary table to illustrate how evaluations have evolved over time.)

            2. Syllabi (include your course syllabi and other significant course materials. You may want to include your method of course preparation)

            3. Unsolicited Student letters

         4. Programs and/or Projects Developed/Future Plans

         5. Advising Effectiveness

            1. Advising Loads and Activities

            2. Descriptions/Sample Materials

      3. Service:

         1. Committee Work/Program Contribution (include here service on committees for your program, department, college, and University)

         2. Administrative Duties (include here all administrative duties performed in service of your program, department, college, and University)

         3. Involvement in Professional Organizations (include here all of the professional organizations you have been involved with, and the service performed)

         4. After the submission of your review materials, they will be passed on via the FPS for departmental review.

   4. Recommendations – To be provided by the department.

      1. Department/School P&T Committee Recommendation

      2. Department Chair/Director Recommendation

      3. All Annual Report and Recommendations (R&Rs)

2. The assessment contains specific references to accomplishments, reservations, and/or stipulations relating to each of the areas. Each assessment will include one of the following recommendations:

   1. Continue to a new three-year appointment with recognition of the following accomplishment(s);

   2. Continue for one year with recognition of the following accomplishment(s), reservation(s), and stipulation(s);

   3. Terminate for the following reasons.

3. The assessment is recorded and placed in the candidate’s file. The file is open for examination by the candidate.

4. The candidate is apprised of the department’s assessment by the department chair/director in personal consultation.

5. The assessment is forwarded to the dean of the college, who appraises it and forwards it with comments to the office of vice chancellor for academic affairs. In the event that revisions are recommended because of irrelevant, inappropriate or inadequate comments, no changes in the assessment can be made without notifying the department chair/director and candidate.

6. If the candidate dissents from the department’s appraisal of progress, resolution is sought in conference with the department chair/director.

7. Failure to reach agreement permits the candidate to appeal to the dean of the college.

Annual Reviews: Years Four and Five

1. In years four and five, the candidate’s department chair/director and department tenure committee indicate their assessment of each non-tenured candidate’s progress toward tenure, according to the unit’s written evidences for promotion to associate professor with tenure.

2. The assessment contains specific references to accomplishments, reservations, and/or stipulations relating to each of the areas. Each assessment will include one of the following recommendations, depending upon the status of the candidate’s current one-year or three-year appointment:

   1. If candidate currently holds a one-year appointment:

      1. Continue for one year with recognition of the following accomplishment(s);

      2. Continue for one year with recognition of the following accomplishment(s), reservation(s), and stipulation(s);

      3. Terminate for the following reasons.

   2. If the candidate currently holds a three-year appointment:

      1. Continue in current appointment with recognition of the following accomplishment(s);

      2. Continue in current appointment with recognition of the following accomplishment(s), reservation(s), and stipulation(s)

3. The assessment is recorded and placed in the candidate’s file. The file is open for examination by the candidate.

4. The candidate is apprised of the department’s assessment by the department chair/director in personal consultation.

5. The assessment is forwarded to the dean of the college, who appraises it and forwards it with comments to the office of vice chancellor for academic affairs. In the event that revisions are recommended because of irrelevant, inappropriate or inadequate comments, no changes in the assessment can be made without notifying the department chair/director and candidate.

6. If the candidate dissents from the department’s appraisal of progress, resolution is sought in conference with the department chairperson/director.

7. Failure to reach agreement permits the candidate to appeal to the dean of the college.

8. If resolution is not reached with the dean and the candidate, the differences of opinion are attached, in writing to the assessment and forwarded to the vice chancellor for academic affairs.

Sixth-Year Review

See “Policies and Procedures for Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure.”

Specific Procedures: Teaching Professors and Professors of Practice

Continuing appointment of Teaching Professors and Professors of Practice is premised on

1. the duration of current appointment (typically three or five years), and

2. an annual performance review.

Annual evaluations serve as an important means of providing ongoing constructive feedback. As with other types of annual performance reviews, the evaluation is based on the extent to which the faculty member’s activities meet or exceed expectations articulated in the specific academic unit’s written evidences for performance in the faculty member’s current title and rank.

1. The performance of all Teaching Professors and Professors of Practice should be reviewed in writing by the department chair/director each year. The review should be based on a close assessment of the quality of the faculty member’s activities with regard to teaching/advising and service (and if appropriate, research/creative work) as recorded in the faculty member’s Curriculum Vitae Update Form, summaries of student course evaluations for the preceding calendar year (spring and fall semesters), course syllabi, and feedback from relevant sources regarding quality of service work, etc. A template for organizing the review letter is available from the college’s Office of Academic Affairs.

2. Reviews will be conducted early in the spring semester of each year, with due dates based on the calendar provided by the VPA Office of Academic Affairs.

3. A copy of the department chair/director’s review letter is provided to the appropriate faculty member in advance of the date the letter is to be submitted to the VPA Office of Academic Affairs, and the faculty member is invited to meet with the chair/director to discuss the review.

4. Discussion with the faculty member about the review should focus on both strengths and weaknesses, with an emphasis on how performance can be improved in the subsequent year.

5. If the faculty member believes the chair/director’s review of their performance is biased or otherwise unfair, they may appeal the review to the department/school’s tenure and promotion committee. The appeal must be in writing to the chair/director within five working days of their performance review meeting with the chair/director. The tenure and promotion committee should review the same materials that were submitted for the chair/director’s review, and reach an independent judgment regarding the faculty member’s performance. If this judgment differs significantly from the chair/director’s assessment, both reviews are submitted to the dean for final arbitration.

6. The chair/director sends a copy of the review letter to the VPA Office of Academic Affairs for the dean’s review and for inclusion in the faculty member’s personnel file.

7. There should be a clear consonance between the substance of the chair/director’s review of a given faculty member’s performance and the chair/director’s subsequent merit salary recommendation to the dean.

Specific Procedures: Tenured Faculty and Post-Tenure Review

Post-Tenure Review

The granting of tenure and promotion to associate professor is accompanied by appropriate expectations, including the expectation of continued striving for excellence in teaching/advising, research/creative work, and service. Whereas the first two expectations regarding teaching and research reflect a continuation of the accomplishments that result in tenure and promotion, the expectations regarding service reflect a marked increase in both the quality and degree of effort in service activities. This shift in level of service is also aimed at helping to reduce the service load on the next generation of tenure-track faculty, enabling them to devote a higher percentage of effort towards teaching and research.

Post-tenure review of faculty members should reflect this shift in expectations as well as any other expectations articulated in the specific academic unit’s written evidences for performance at the faculty member’s current rank. Annual performance reviews are an essential aspect of the University’s merit-based salary adjustment process, and an important means of providing feedback about performance to faculty members, both pre- and post-tenure. Whereas the pre-tenure review process, described elsewhere in this document, involves review of performance by both the department/school tenure and promotion committee and the department chair/director, post-tenure reviews are primarily the responsibility of the department chair/director, as outlined below:

1. The performance of all tenured faculty members should be reviewed in writing by the department chair/director each year. The review should be based on a close assessment of the quality of the faculty member’s activities with regard to teaching/advising, research/creative work, and service as recorded in the faculty member’s Curriculum Vitae Update Form, summaries of student course evaluations for the preceding calendar year (spring and fall semesters), course syllabi, and feedback from relevant sources regarding quality of service work, etc. A template for organizing the review letter is available from the college’s Office of Academic Affairs.

2. Reviews will be conducted early in the spring semester of each year, with due dates based on the calendar provided by the VPA Office of Academic Affairs.

3. A copy of the department chair/director’s review letter is provided to the appropriate faculty member in advance of the date the letter is to be submitted to the VPA Office of Academic Affairs, and the faculty member is invited to meet with the chair/director to discuss the review.

4. Discussion with the faculty member about the review should focus on both strengths and weaknesses, with an emphasis on how performance can be improved in the subsequent year.

5. If the faculty member believes the chair/director’s performance evaluation is biased or otherwise unfair, they may appeal the review to the department/school’s tenure and promotion committee. The appeal must be in writing to the chair/director within five working days of their performance review meeting with the chair/director. The tenure and promotion committee should review the same materials that were submitted for the chair/director’s review, and reach an independent judgment regarding the faculty member’s performance. If this judgment differs significantly from the chair/director’s assessment, both reviews are submitted to the dean for final arbitration.

6. The chair/director sends a copy of the review letter to the VPA Office of Academic Affairs for the dean’s review and for inclusion in the faculty member’s personnel file.

7. There should be a clear consonance between the substance of the chair/director’s review of a given faculty member’s performance and the chair/director’s subsequent merit salary recommendation to the dean.