| Each year the Dean sends a memorandum to all tenure-track faculty that draws attention to key consideration in the tenuring process. Its most important point is the progressive nature of expectations during the course of time in the tenure track. The memo distributed in August, 2005, which follows, is representative; the memo is subject to revision and editing each year: August 05, 2007 MEMORANDUM TO: Tenure-track Faculty in the College of Arts and Sciences: COPY: Department Chair FROM: Joe Lenz, Interim Dean of Arts and Sciences RE: Criteria, procedures, expectations, and timetables for reappointment and eventual tenure in the College of Arts and Sciences Welcome back to Drake for the new academic year. As a follow-up to the meeting of the tenure-track faculty with the Dean and the Chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee in the spring I am sending this. Each year the Dean of Arts and Sciences sends a memorandum to all tenure-track faculty concerning the criteria and expectations for faculty performance as they apply to persons in the tenure track. It is intended to ensure that you are well informed on the matters it addresses. I encourage you to discuss this memorandum, as well as documents cited in it, with your department chair. The criteria, expectations, and procedures for the awarding of tenure are stated in the College handbook (3.1) , now found on-line, and in the statements on criteria and procedures for faculty evaluation prepared in each department (and, consistent with the handbook requirement, approved by the dean). My purpose here is to call them to your attention in explicit terms and to offer to respond to any questions you might have as you seek to qualify each year for reappointment and eventually, following successive reappointments, for tenure. The following summary reflects established practices, as it relies heavily on statements previously issued. It is intended primarily to supplement and elaborate on the College handbook, the faculty evaluation procedures, the department statements, and the traditions of the College. In case of any unintended discrepancies, the Faculty handbook takes precedence. [Note: This is a slightly revised version of the one distributed on December 17, 1998, which, in turn, incorporated revisions made since the first one was issued on February 29, 1988.] As the chief administrative officer of the College, the Dean has primary responsibility for personnel recommendations. The recommendations are based on careful annual evaluations and rigorous reappointment judgments by faculty in the departments of the College. Such evaluations and judgments are essential to ensure the strength of the faculty and the College. In addition to the forms completed for all faculty, department chairs, in consultation with the tenured faculty in their departments, provide more detailed assessments of the performance of persons in their departments who are in a probationary, tenure-track status. These assessments are submitted on or before these specified dates: November 15 for second-year faculty; February 15 for first, third-, fourth-, and fifth-year faculty. Professional Activities Records should be presented to chairs one month before these due dates (they may be in tentative form for second-year faculty, since the due date comes before the end of the calendar year the PAR covers). Submission on these dates is necessary to permit decisions on appointment or non-reappointment by the dates stated in the AAUP guidelines to which Drake subscribes: March 1 of the first year of academic service if the appointment expires at the end of that year; December 15 of the second academic year of service if the appointment expires at the end of that year; and at least twelve months before the expiration of an appointment after two or more years of service at the institution. (See the Administrative Procedures handbook, Part I, for more information on PAR 's and PAE 's. The forms to be used are available from department secretaries.) Reappointment
Annual reappointment involves consideration of two separate elements: a) an administrative element, in which the place of the faculty position in the programs and plans of the University is reviewed, taking into account the educational needs and the resources of the University and determining whether the line supporting the position shall be retained in the budget; and b) a performance element, in which the person holding the position is reviewed for quality of performance with respect to all of the evaluative criteria. Probationary appointments of tenure-track faculty are one-year employment commitments, subject to annual evaluation to determine whether reappointment is warranted, based on both elements stated in the previous paragraph. Tenure-track appointments typically require a probationary period of six years of service to Drake, or years of service totaling six, with no more than up to three years being credited for service in other institutions prior to coming to Drake. The number of years of service to be credited is agreed upon at the time of the initial appointment. Departments may recommend candidates in advance of the agreed-upon date, but postponement beyond this date is not permitted The probationary period is the time for the faculty member to demonstrate her or his professional competencies and to establish a record of accomplishment for tenure review. Annual renewal of an appointment during the probationary period is not, in and of itself, an assurance of an eventual award of tenure. The granting of tenure depends both upon a demonstrated record of professional accomplishments and the University's long-term commitment to renewal of the position in the budget at the time of tenure consideration. Faculty members are expected to meet stipulated performance criteria, and the College gives feedback concerning the sufficiency and quality of performance on the various aspects of their responsibilities and assignments. The feedback comes informally through conversations with the chair and colleagues in the department and formally in the annual Professional Activities Evaluation prepared by the department chair, as well as in other documents consistent with the practices in each department. The faculty member is at all times responsible for her or his progress toward an acceptable merit review at the time of consideration for tenure. Evaluative Criteria
As the Faculty handbook makes clear, there are four basic criteria for the evaluation of faculty for reappointment. · The first criterion is teaching effectiveness, which includes performance of any relevant teaching activity whether in the classroom, laboratory, studio, on-line, or in individual tutorial situations. It requires expertise in the discipline and mastery of the subject matter as well as the ability to select and implement appropriate pedagogical strategies to organize materials and activities for the accomplishment of student learning outcomes and to carry out formative and summative evaluations of student achievement. Effective teachers present materials clearly; conduct classroom, laboratory, studio or tutorial activities purposefully; engage students' minds and motivate them to perform to the best of their ability; create interaction when appropriate among students and between students and the professor, and develop students' skills consistent with course objectives. Each department typically specifies how evaluative information on teaching is to be gathered and reviewed, and faculty members are expected to provide their peers with materials for review that can help demonstrate their contribution to student learning. · Scholarship/creative activity, which reflects intellectual or artistic growth and development, is the second criterion. As the handbook indicates, scholarship may have various manifestations. Research that generates new knowledge in a discipline or on teaching a discipline usually leads to the publication of articles (typically in refereed journals) and books. Creative activity includes artistic work that is subject to critical review, publication or performance of original musical compositions, exhibitions of art work in individual or group displays, involvement in either the technical or creative aspects of theatrical productions, and public readings of one's own creative writing in prose and/or poetry. Each department's statement on criteria and procedures for faculty evaluation provides elaborations, if deemed necessary, on the specific expectations concerning the demonstration of scholarship and/or artistic achievement in the discipline of its members. The College of Arts and Sciences does not confine the idea of scholarship to publication, nor is creative performance measured strictly in terms of mandatory external review. Nonetheless, as is evident in the preceding paragraph, faculty members are expected to use significant modes of externalizing their scholarly or artistic ideas, insights, products, or creations. An idea or product which cannot be subjected to some form of critical examination by peers is not scholarship or creative activity as here defined. Moreover, ideas or products for which recognition is expected must be presented for review by colleagues in the department. [An excellent statement on assessing scholarship appears in Saints and Scamps: Ethics in Academia, by Steven Cahn: "Few who oppose the 'publish or perish' principle would object to the demand that faculty members 'think or perish,' yet to publish is to make available to all the results of one's best thinking. Professors who fail to do so must seek alternative ways of providing clear and substantial evidence of their intellectual vigor. If they are unable to shoulder the burden of proof, others are justified in doubting the quality of their thinking and, hence, of their teaching."] · The third criterion is service, which includes contributions to the Department, College, and University with respect to committee work, the governance system, or the general welfare of the collegial and professional communities and effectiveness in academic advising. Faculty members can demonstrate collegial service in a variety of ways, and no comprehensive listing is attempted here.
The importance of the three areas in which evaluative criteria are applied is clearly in the following order: teaching, scholarship, and service. The ideal is a balanced performance in which effectiveness in teaching, which is given the greatest weight, is accompanied by excellence in scholarship and collegial service. Deficiencies in teaching cannot be offset by accomplishments in other areas, a light advising load may be offset by strength in service, and vice versa. The Arts and Sciences Council has voted to separate advising from service creating a new evaluative fourth criterion is of Advising and Mentoring. Faculty should be competent not only in advising students on major or general education curricular requirements, but also in developing relationships with students and/or student organizations that help mentor students in the discipline as they prepare for graduate studies or professional careers. Tenure-track faculty should consult with their Department s are charged with developing statements regarding its unique criteria and evidence to be presented evaluation processes in relation to advising and mentoring. Advising and Mentoring will be an evaluative area starting with evaluations during the 2001-02 academic year. Review and Evaluation for Reappointment
Throughout the probationary period the faculty member should build a case for tenure in terms of these evaluative criteria, and the College should provide feedback at each evaluation period. Note that since growth as a teacher, scholar, and collegial contributor is expected, a performance judged to be excellent in the first year and second year would not necessarily satisfy expectations in later years. The First Year: In the first year, evaluation focuses principally on teaching performance. If problems are apparent or difficulties are encountered but are judged to be correctable, then the faculty person is advised to find ways of improving teaching effectiveness. Student assessments of teaching effectiveness are required, and the counsel of colleagues in the department should be sought. Grant proposals for support of scholarly or artistic work should be initiated if appropriate. Service beyond departmental involvement and participation in basic College activities is generally not expected. [Note: Those who have not completed the terminal degree in the discipline must be aware that attainment of the degree is expected by March 15 of the first year. The Second Year: Due to the AAUP requirement that non-reappointment decisions be conveyed to faculty members in their second year of service by December 15th, evaluations are completed and decisions made before the first semester of the second year is completed. Teaching effectiveness remains a major focus of concern. There should be clear progress toward overcoming previous difficulties and continued good performance overall. Faculty members are required to use some form of student assessment, and peer observation to evaluate teaching effectiveness is strongly encouraged. In the second year, probationary faculty should show marked progress in establishing a record of productive scholarship and creative activity. The beginnings of a service record should also be indicated. The Third Year: A balance in the teacher/scholar or teacher/artist role should be well established. Any teaching problems should now be overcome and there must be no doubts about solid teaching effectiveness. There can be no grounds for reservations about the performance and promise of the individual as a contributing teacher/scholar or teacher/artist in the College community. The role of the faculty member in the department and the College is an important part of the evaluation process because each faculty member is expected to be an active teacher/scholar or teacher/artist involved in service to the College and University communities. [Note: Faculty members appointed in the tenure-track with credit toward tenure must be evaluated according to the timetable indicated in the fourth paragraph of this memorandum; however, they are expected to move quickly to satisfy the expectations implicit in the credit they have been granted toward tenure. For example, one appointed with three years of credit will be expected, by the end of the first year, to be performing in the roles and at the levels expected of individuals in the fourth year of the track toward tenure.] The Fourth and Fifth Years: These reviews are considered "pre-tenure" reviews (which come sooner, of course, for those faculty members who come to Drake with credit toward tenure). In both quantitative and qualitative terms, the faculty member must present a close approximation of fitness for tenure. He or she must provide clear evidence that a high level of performance has been attained. Any teaching deficiencies or weaknesses must have been overcome. Actual scholarly or artistic accomplishment should replace the indications of promise that were acceptable at earlier stages. The faculty member should also be building a record of service and student mentorship. Probationary faculty members should be aware that in the initial years in the tenure track their annual reviews are largely, though not exclusively, formative in character. The principal purpose of the reviews is to provide guidance, direction, and encouragement. Through the years in probationary status, the reviews incorporate a greater measure of summative considerations, as increasing attention is given each year to assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the persons being reviewed, with the purpose of judging providing advice on the prospects of eventual tenurability. These probationary reviews , however, do not prejudge the recommendations of the department, Promotion and Tenure Committee, or the Dean of Arts and Sciences in the reviews taking place in the final tenure year. Tenure - Just what is tenure?
1. Tenure is the awarding of a continuous appointment to the faculty member by the University.
2. Tenure is recognition by the University that the individual to whom it is awarded has demonstrated qualities and achievements that embody the ideals and purposes of the University and that continued excellence in professional performance can be anticipated.
3. Tenure is a means of ensuring academic freedom by the provision of career security.
4. Tenure is a serious and virtually permanent commitment–a lifetime commitment–by the institution to a faculty member. The University's expectations of the faculty member are equally serious.
5. Tenure is actively earned during the probationary period by demonstration of professional competence in performance as a teacher, as a scholar or artist, and as a member of the University community. Responsibility for initiating and establishing the record that justifies annual reappointments and eventually the awarding of tenure rests with the faculty member. There can be no excuses and no equivocation in the review process preceding the tenure decision. When the decision point is reached, the faculty case must be clear-cut for tenure. If you have any questions on the criteria and process for tenure please consult with your department chair or with me as appropriate. · · · · · For the record of:
Year of mandatoryer review, assuming annual reappointments:
xc: Provost Troy | 
