The work of the Faculty is outlined in Section VII. This work is expected to be done at a level of accomplishment that meets or exceeds the standard of excellence set by the College as detailed in Section VIII above. This section of the “Statement of Policies and Procedures in regard to Faculty” is a compilation of the procedures that govern the collection of information about the performance of a faculty member. It identifies those persons, committees, and administrative officers involved in the task of making assessments.

Assessments of Faculty occur periodically, based on the standing of a member of the Faculty. Probationary members of the Faculty undergo reviews at the Department/program level (A below), in their second year (B below), in their fourth year (C below) and in their sixth year (D below) of appointment. These reviews focus on progress towards and eligibility for a contract with tenure in the seventh year of appointment. Promotion to the rank of Associate Professor normally coincides with the awarding of tenure. Subsequent to the granting of a contract with tenure, members of the Faculty are reviewed every six years (E below). A special review applies to those members of the Faculty who are eligible and apply for promotion to the rank of Professor (F below).

Input into the assessment processes includes evaluations by students, by colleagues both within and from outside the department/program of the faculty member, and in some cases by faculty members at other institutions within the discipline of the faculty member.

Evaluation by students is achieved in two ways:

1. Near the end of a course, a college-wide evaluation instrument, approved by the Faculty and the Vice President for Academic Affairs, is administered.
2. Questionnaires are distributed in support of the fourth- and sixth-year reviews and in support of the review for promotion to Full Professor.

The college-wide student evaluations are administered in all courses taught by probationary faculty members and part-time officers of instruction, and in at least one course taught each semester by each tenured faculty member. In the latter case, evaluations should be administered to ensure that the variety of courses taught by each tenured faculty member is represented.

For each of the reviews outlined below, the special obligations of colleagues for assessments are noted. Colleague evaluations from within or beyond the Rhodes Faculty may be requested at any time should the department and/or program Chair(s) and the Vice President for Academic Affairs deem it necessary.

A shift in curricular requirements or a substantial change in enrollment patterns may make it necessary to change the definition of a position in the Faculty from tenure-track to temporary or to eliminate the position entirely. The tenure-track member of the Faculty in such a position will be informed about the possibility of a change in status as early as is reasonably possible. Reappointment or tenure may be denied if such shifts have reduced the need for a permanent position in the department/program of the faculty member.

Terms and definitions that apply to section IX:

Candidate – Any faculty member undergoing an evaluation.

CV – A faculty member’s CV may be disciplinarily specific but for evaluative purposes should include at a minimum all professional work accomplished by the faculty member and all records of service to the College and community.

Portfolio – For purposes of evaluation a portfolio consists of a current CV, annual Position Responsibility Statement(s) (PRS), a list of courses taught during the evaluation period, syllabi for each of these courses, and samples of assigned work and exams. Copies of all scholarly achievements (e.g., published work, sound recordings, images of artwork, etc.) should be included in the portfolio. The portfolio also includes a narrative statement (normally three-five double-spaced, pages) that discusses the faculty member’s performance and trajectory in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service. Examples of types of information to discuss include: a description of teaching philosophy as it relates to courses taught during this period, a description of the feedback given to students on graded assignments, additional teaching experiences, new course development, major changes to existing courses, any initiatives taken to improve teaching, a description of scholarship that has been completed or published during the review period as well as a trajectory for ongoing scholarly activities, and a description of forms of service to the department/program, College, and/or to the wider community, and any other forms of professional activity within the faculty member’s academic discipline. Candidates should update their portfolios annually; these portfolios will be assessed at all stages of review during the probationary period and post-tenure reviews.

Position Responsibility Statement (PRS) - This is a narrative description of faculty responsibilities in teaching, scholarship, and institutional service created in collaboration by the faculty member, Department Chair, Program Chair, and Vice President for Academic Affairs. The PRS specifies teaching commitments to departments and programs, scholarship expectations for the candidate, advising and general service expectations, and evaluation personnel.

Scholarship –research and/or creative activity outcomes as specified in department or program scholarship expectations. All department and program scholarship expectations are approved by the Vice President for Academic Affairs. Each candidate’s scholarship or creative activity expectations are specified in the PRS.

Senior member of the department/program – A full-time, tenured faculty member in the department/program.

Teaching Evaluation Committee – A group of three or four colleagues appointed during the candidate’s first term with special responsibility for assessing classroom teaching during the second-, fourth-, and sixth-year reviews. The members of this committee will normally continue to serve during the candidate’s entire probationary period. Normally, these committees are comprised of the Chair of the faculty member’s home department or home program and two senior faculty members. For faculty with significant interdisciplinary teaching commitments, the Chair of the program normally will serve on the Teaching Evaluation Committee. In the sixth-year review, this group also includes a senior faculty member who does not reside in the candidate’s department or program. Where fewer than three senior members of the department/program exist, the Vice President for Academic Affairs, in consultation with the Chair of the Department/Program, will appoint ad hoc members to fill out these committees as necessary. Committee membership for all Teaching Evaluation Committees leading up to tenure will be specified in the PRS in the first year of the candidate’s appointment.

Tenure-track faculty member – A faculty member in her or his first six years of service at the College, who is on a tenure-track appointment but has not yet achieved tenure.

Special Provisions for Changes in Section IX of the “Statement of Policies and Procedures in regard to Faculty”

Modifications in the processes and procedures outlined in this section of the “Statement of Policies and Procedures in regard to Faculty” are operational matters. Modifications may be initiated by committees of the Faculty or by members of the College administration. All modifications must be approved by the Faculty and the Vice President for Academic Affairs. Modifications are then reported to the Committee of Student Learning of the Board of Trustees. The Committee may bring such matters to the attention of the Board of Trustees for further action as deemed necessary. As such, changes in this section (Section IX) fall outside the procedure for modifying the “Statement of Policies and Procedures in regard to Faculty” prescribed in Section I.

Overview: In the spring semester of years one, three, and five, tenure-track faculty will undergo reviews at the departmental/program level. These reviews are designed to ensure that, when a faculty member is not undergoing a second- or fourth-year review, or a tenure review, ongoing attention is given to the trajectory toward tenure. In the third and fifth years, it will be important to focus on any areas where suggestions for improvement were made to the faculty member in the preceding year’s review.

First-Year Review

The Process: The first-year review is conducted by the department/program Chair early in the spring semester (January) of the tenure-track faculty member’s first year of service to the College. The first-year review is formative in nature as it occurs after only one semester. The candidate will submit a portfolio according to instructions provided by the Office of Academic Affairs that includes materials on teaching, scholarship, and service. The department/program Chair (or, with the approval of the Vice President for Academic Affairs, a designated senior colleague in the department/program) will observe the candidate’s teaching during the fall semester and meet with the candidate to provide appropriate feedback. The purpose of these visits is to support and guide the candidate toward effective teaching at Rhodes. The Chair and the candidate should work together to determine the timing of class visits to help promote the candidate’s development. Additionally, the department/program Chair will review the candidate’s college-wide student evaluations and grade distributions for all classes taught during the first semester. The department/program Chair and a representative for Academic Affairs will meet with the candidate to discuss his or her progress, plans for future work, and the College’s expectations in all three areas of assessment.

Third-Year and Fifth-Year Reviews

The Process: The third-year and fifth-year reviews are conducted by the department/program Chair early in the spring semester (January) of the tenure track faculty member’s third or fifth year of service to the College, respectively. The department/program Chair reviews materials on teaching, scholarship, and service included in the candidate’s updated portfolio. The department/program Chair (or, with the approval of the Vice President for Academic Affairs, a designated senior colleague in the department/program) will observe the candidate’s teaching during the fall semester and meet with the candidate to provide appropriate feedback. The purpose of these visits is to support and guide the candidate toward effective teaching at Rhodes. The chair and the candidate should work together to determine the timing of class visits to help promote the candidate’s development. The department/program Chair will also review college-wide student evaluations and grade distributions for all classes taught during the review period. The department/program Chair determines whether progress in each category of evaluation is satisfactory or if there are areas of concern. In the third-year, the department/program Chair will also consider feedback provided to the faculty member during the second-year review and assess whether progress is being made by the candidate in any areas identified as needing improvement. In the fifth-year, feedback provided during the fourth-year review will be considered in a similar fashion. The department/program Chair then meets with the candidate to discuss the Chair’s assessment as well as the candidate’s plans for future work. If no concerns are noted, this concludes the review process.

If there are any areas of concern, the department/program Chair also schedules a meeting with the Vice President for Academic Affairs to discuss the outcome of the review. In the event of such a meeting, the department/program Chair conveys in writing the results of the evaluation (including feedback from the Vice President for Academic Affairs) to the candidate. The department/program Chair will also send a copy of this letter to the Vice President for Academic Affairs that will be maintained in the Office of Academic Affairs throughout the candidate’s tenure-track period of service to the College, and it is available to the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion upon request during a sixth-year review.

Overview: A tenure-track member of the faculty undergoes a second-year review in the spring semester of the second year of the first six years of his or her appointment. As both formative and summative, this review provides feedback on progress towards a successful tenure review and identifies areas that require attention prior to a tenure review.

The Process: The second-year review is conducted very early in the spring semester (January) by the tenure-track faculty member’s department/program Chair. The candidate prepares an updated portfolio for this review. The department/program Chair reviews materials on teaching, scholarship and service included in the candidate’s portfolio. The department/program Chair (or, with the approval of the Vice President for Academic Affairs, a designated senior colleague in the department/program) will also observe three of the candidate’s classes in the fall semester prior to the review. Additionally, the department/program Chair will review the candidate’s college-wide student evaluations and grade distributions for all classes taught during the review period.

The department Chair will receive input from at least two senior members of the department. The program Chair will receive input from at least two senior faculty members in the program or faculty designated by the Vice President for Academic Affairs. Faculty housed in departments but engaged in significant interdisciplinary scholarship or significant and regular teaching in interdisciplinary programs will be evaluated by the department Chair and two other senior faculty, normally the program Chair and a senior faculty member designated by the Vice President for Academic Affairs in consultation with the Chairs. These senior members of the department and/or program will be identified in the fall of the candidate’s first year of service at the College and designated in the PRS. When possible, the senior faculty who participate in the second-year review will remain in place through the tenure review in order to ensure continuity of observation and feedback.

Input from these senior department/program members will be informed by observations from class visits during the previous two semesters (at least one class session during the first year and one class session in the fall semester of the second year) and a review of the candidate’s portfolio. These senior members of the department/program will meet as a group with the department/program Chair to discuss their observations and findings.

The department/program Chair then makes a determination regarding the candidate’s progress in each category of evaluation using the description of performance described in the previous section (Section VIII). The department/program Chair then meets with the candidate to discuss the Chair’s assessment as well as the candidate’s plans for future work.

The department/program Chair’s written assessment of the candidate’s progress in each category of evaluation (including the reasons for the assessments) and the candidate’s portfolio are sent to the Vice President for Academic Affairs, usually late in January. The Vice President for Academic Affairs will have an initial meeting with the department/program Chair to discuss the Chair’s assessment and the Vice President’s assessment of the candidate’s progress. This is followed by a meeting with the Vice President for Academic Affairs, the department/program Chair, and the candidate to discuss his or her progress. The Vice President for Academic Affairs will provide a written summary of the outcome of the review focusing on the candidate’s progress in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service with recommendations for improvement when necessary. If progress is deemed to be insufficient, the Vice President for Academic Affairs will communicate this in the letter as well. This letter will become part of the official record examined during the fourth-year review. After the meeting with the Vice President for Academic Affairs, the department/program Chair will have a follow-up meeting with the candidate to discuss the feedback from the review process and to assist the candidate in identifying strategies to foster an ongoing positive trajectory in each category of evaluation.

In the case of departments/programs with fewer than three senior faculty members, an ad hoc department/program committee for a tenure-track faculty member will be constituted in the first year and specified in the PRS. One or two ad hoc department/program committee members will be designated by the Vice President for Academic Affairs in consultation with the senior members of the candidate’s department/program and the candidate. Ad hoc department/program committee members will be expected to engage in regular classroom visitations, as well as have a conversation with the candidate concerning teaching and scholarship expectations. Normally, the ad hoc department/program committee will continue to evaluate the candidate through the tenure review, even if the department/program grows to more than three senior members between the candidate’s first and sixth year. This will help to ensure continuity of observation and feedback throughout the probationary period.

Overview: The fourth-year review is both formative and summative. It considers the same three areas of faculty performance as the second-year review, but is broader in scope in that all tenured faculty participating in the review provide a written assessment of a candidate. The fourth-year review is particularly crucial for determining the likelihood of success during the tenure review for a faculty member at the College. The fourth-year review is also done with attention given to the College’s needs for the position in the faculty member’s discipline.

Faculty housed in academic departments are evaluated at the fourth year by all tenured departmental faculty members. 

Faculty housed in interdisciplinary programs are evaluated by a committee of senior faculty constituted in the first year by the Vice President for Academic Affairs in consultation with the program Chair and specified in the PRS. Normally, this committee will include the program Chair and two senior faculty involved in the candidate’s second-year review, and possibly other senior faculty with appropriate expertise. When possible, this review committee will stay in place through the candidate’s sixth-year in order to ensure continuity of observation and feedback.

Faculty housed in departments but engaged in significant interdisciplinary scholarship or have significant and regular teaching commitments to interdisciplinary programs will be evaluated by all tenured departmental faculty members, but in these cases the review will normally include the Chair of the relevant interdisciplinary program and/or other tenured program faculty with relevant scholarship and/or teaching expertise. The decision to expand the review beyond the department will be made by the Vice President for Academic Affairs in consultation with the department Chair, the program Chair, and the candidate and will be specified in the PRS. Normally this decision will be made in the first year, and when possible, the department and program faculty for the fourth-year review will remain in place through the tenure review in order to ensure continuity of observation and feedback.

The fourth-year review takes place in the fall semester of the candidate’s fourth year of service to the College. The review process is initiated in August, with data collection early in the fall semester. It concludes in December with a meeting attended by the candidate, department/program Chair, and Vice President for Academic Affairs.

The Process: By the first day of the fall semester, the candidate will submit an updated portfolio according to instructions provided by the Office of Academic Affairs. During the fall semester, the Office of Academic Affairs will distribute questionnaires to be completed by all students who have completed a class (or classes) with the candidate and earned grades of A through D- during his or her first six semesters of teaching at the College. If the Vice President for Academic Affairs believes more information on teaching performance is needed, a representative for Academic Affairs and the department/program Chair will co-conduct interviews with selected students. The Office of Academic Affairs will also send questionnaires to all of the candidate’s official and unofficial advisees, and will collect copies of all of the candidate’s college-generated course evaluations.

Senior departmental/program faculty members will review the candidate’s portfolio and visit at least one class. Faculty who are members of the Teaching Evaluation Committee will visit a minimum of three classes during the first semester of the candidate’s fourth year. Senior faculty members will meet as a group with the department/program Chair to discuss the candidate’s performance in teaching, scholarship, and service over the four years, his or her suitability for renewal, and suggestions for possible improvement, where necessary. Each senior member writes a letter of his or her assessment of the candidate; this letter is submitted according to instructions provided by the Office of Academic Affairs. In addition to his or her independent assessment, the department/program Chair’s letter to the Vice President for Academic Affairs addresses any problems raised by the senior faculty members taking part in the review.

The candidate has the option of soliciting additional letters from faculty and staff members that focus on the candidate’s service performance and campus citizenship, and one optional letter from a representative outside of the Rhodes College community. These letters should be submitted according to instructions provided by the Office of Academic Affairs. The remainder of the review, which culminates in December, is carried out by the Vice President for Academic Affairs and the department/program Chair. A final assessment of performance in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service is given in writing by the Vice President for Academic Affairs to the candidate at the review’s conclusion.

A faculty member not meeting the College’s standards and/or not making adequate progress toward tenure in any area of evaluation (teaching, scholarship, or service) following the fourth-year review will not have his or her contract renewed after the fifth year of appointment. This candidate does not undergo a sixth-year review. The fifth year constitutes the twelve months’ notice of non-reappointment.

The materials compiled during the fourth-year review will be maintained by the Office of Academic Affairs and will be available to the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion upon request during a tenure review.

The tenure review process is a comprehensive assessment of the work of a faculty member. It is a review of the work of the candidate since the beginning of his or her appointment as well as an attempt to gauge a trajectory of the candidate’s career at the College. A candidate for tenure must hold the Ph.D. degree or other appropriate terminal degree.

The group of senior faculty who evaluate the candidate during the tenure review is constituted in parallel with the procedure for the fourth-year review. Faculty housed in academic departments are evaluated for tenure by all tenured departmental faculty members. 

Faculty housed in interdisciplinary programs are evaluated by a committee of senior faculty constituted in the first year by the Vice President for Academic Affairs in consultation with the program Chair and specified in the PRS. Normally, this committee will include the program Chair and the senior faculty involved in the candidate’s fourth-year review, and other possibly other senior faculty with appropriate expertise.

Faculty housed in departments but engaged in significant interdisciplinary scholarship or significant and regular teaching in interdisciplinary programs will be evaluated by all tenured departmental faculty members, but in these cases the review will normally include the Chair of the relevant interdisciplinary program and/or other tenured program faculty with relevant scholarship and/or teaching expertise. The decision to expand the review beyond the department will be made by the Vice President for Academic Affairs in consultation with the department Chair, the program Chair, and the candidate and will be specified in the PRS. When possible, extra-departmental faculty participating in the tenure review will include those who evaluated the candidate in the fourth-year review.

By May 31 (preceding the academic year of review), the candidate for tenure submits the names of at least six outside reviewers of professional work. At the start of the year of the review, the candidate for tenure prepares an updated portfolio, together with supplemental materials described below. The Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion, the candidate’s department/program Chair, and the Office of Academic Affairs then work together to gather all of the documentation required for the review. A number of steps are involved in this process:

• A designated representative for Academic Affairs and the Chair of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion contact the Teaching Evaluation Committee assembled prior to the fourth-year review. Four external reviewers are secured to assist in evaluating the candidate’s scholarship. A designated Associate Dean of Academic Affairs and the Chair of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion select two outside reviewers from a list created by the candidate. The designated representative for Academic Affairs, in consultation with the Chair of the candidate’s department/program and with the Chair of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion, selects two additional reviewers. The representative for Academic Affairs contacts outside reviewers to secure their agreement to participate in the process of assessment and forwards the materials to be reviewed.
• The Chair of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion obtains a list of students taught by the candidate. These students receive a survey about the candidate’s teaching effectiveness. A similar list is prepared to include all of the advisees served by the candidate. These students will receive a survey about the candidate’s work as an advisor. If the candidate provides an additional list of students considered as unofficial advisees and states the nature of their advising relationship with them, these students will also receive a survey about the candidate’s work as an unofficial advisor.
• The Chair of the Teaching Evaluation Committee convenes the committee, reviews the process of visitation, and oversees the timely preparation of letters for the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion.
• The Chair of the Committee on Tenure and Promotion invites those faculty colleagues named by the candidate to submit letters of evaluation concerning service to the College.
• The Chair of the department/program reviews the process of evaluation at the departmental/program level with the senior members of the department/program early in the semester of review, and oversees the scheduling of class visits for senior faculty not appointed to the Teaching Evaluation Committee. He or she then convenes the department/program meeting to discuss the candidate’s performance at the end of the review process, and oversees the timely submission of letters for the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion.

When all of the review materials have been assembled, the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion evaluates the candidate’s record of teaching, scholarship, and service. Deliberation by the Tenure and Promotion Committee usually occurs late in the fall semester of the review year. This committee makes a recommendation for or against the granting of tenure to the Vice President for Academic Affairs normally by February 15. The Vice President for Academic Affairs’ review of the case is completed by early March. The Vice President for Academic Affairs forwards his or her recommendation, along with the Tenure and Promotion Committee’s recommendation, to the President for review. The President’s decision, if positive, results in a recommendation for the granting of tenure and promotion that is sent to the Board of Trustees at their April meeting. Tenure is granted to members of the Rhodes Faculty by the Board of Trustees on the recommendation of the President (typically at that same meeting).

In completing the assessment and determining that a recommendation in favor of granting tenure is appropriate, the consensus of the department/program Chair, the Vice President for Academic Affairs, and the President must be that there is a clear need for continuing a permanent position in the area of the faculty member’s expertise and teaching competence.

Normally no member of the Faculty may teach more than seven years at Rhodes without having been granted tenure; exceptions are made only in those special circumstances where a term contract is appropriate.

Promotion to Associate Professor normally accompanies a positive tenure decision as a natural consequence of meeting the standards for tenure. On rare occasions, promotion to Associate Professor may occur before completion of twelve semesters of full-time teaching as a way to recognize an unusually effective member of the Faculty. While such early promotion to Associate Professor requires evidence of outstanding contributions to the College, it does not guarantee a positive tenure review.

Tenure may be offered with the initial appointment of a senior academic to the Rhodes Faculty; in this case expedited reviews by the appropriate academic department/program, the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion, and the Vice President for Academic Affairs are required.

A number of people or groups have roles in this process, and the responsibilities of each of these are outlined below.

The responsibilities of candidates for tenure are as follows:

1. Preparation of an updated portfolio in which the candidate presents relevant materials in support of the application for tenure. This portfolio would include the following

• A current curriculum vitae
• A written statement about the candidate’s work that focuses on contributions to the scholarship of the respective discipline(s) and the candidate’s teaching and service at Rhodes College.
• Copies of all scholarly work (publications, evidence of creative activities, etc.).
• Teaching materials including, but not limited to, syllabi, exams, study questions, laboratory exercises.
• An optional research statement that outlines the current and future trajectory of their scholarly work and/or places their scholarly work in the context of an overall strategy for external reviewers. 

2. Lists of the following possible evaluators:

A-Required:

• The names of the four members of the Faculty who served on the fourth-year Teaching Evaluation Committee.
• The names of at least six outside evaluators of professional work. All of these persons should be recognized scholars in the discipline. None should have a personal stake in the career of the candidate. The candidate provides a description of the extent of personal acquaintance, if any, the candidate has with each of the scholars named. At least two of the outside evaluators will be selected from this list.
• The names of three members of the Rhodes community (tenured faculty members and/or staff members) who can provide evaluations of service to the College. One of these can be a faculty or staff member who has left or retired from the College in the previous two years.

B-Optional:

• If the candidate chooses the option of soliciting an additional letter from a representative outside of the Rhodes College community that focuses on the candidate’s service performance and campus citizenship, then the candidate may provide the names of up to three individuals outside of the Rhodes community.
• If the candidate chooses the option of soliciting additional survey information from students that the candidate considers unofficial advisees, then the candidate may provide the names of these students and state the nature of their advising relationship with them.

The responsibilities of the senior members of the candidate’s department/program as specified in the PRS are as follows:

• Senior members review the materials prepared for the department/program by the candidate. Senior members should be especially mindful of the particular expectations for scholarship formulated by the academic department/program of the candidate. These have been established to present, in more detail, expectations for scholarship that must be met for a positive review at the department/program level.
• Senior members will observe at least one class during the fall semester of the review year. (Those senior members appointed to the Teaching Evaluation Committee will observe more classes, and their specific responsibilities are described below.)
• Senior members may seek further information, not gathered as a result of the processes described above, when that information is essential in making a reasoned judgment about the candidate’s performance. While candidates for tenure cannot be privy to student, faculty, or outside colleague comments on their performance, they must be informed if the department/program has questions about matters which the candidate can reasonably be expected to answer or clarify. In such instances, the candidate makes a written response which becomes a document available throughout the review process.
• As a group, senior members meet with the Chair of the department/program to discuss the performance of the candidate, as measured against the College’s standards for reappointment with tenure. At the close of this meeting, each senior member will indicate whether or not, in her/his judgment, the candidate has met the College’s standard for excellent work in all three areas of evaluation: teaching (as defined in Handbook section 7A), scholarship (section 7B, and further clarified in the department/program expectations), and service (section 7C). The purpose of this meeting of senior department/program colleagues is to provide the candidate a clear and direct indication of the judgment of their department/program colleagues, while still preserving confidentiality, and so senior members are asked here only to judge whether the candidate has met the College’s standards for promotion and tenure, or not. This meeting will take place no later than November 1.
• Following this meeting the department/program Chair will prepare a very brief letter to the candidate summarizing its outcome. This letter will not contain names or number of votes. This department/program letter shall be conveyed to the candidate by November 15, with copies sent to the Vice President for Academic Affairs and the Chair of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion.
• Each senior member of the department/program writes an individual letter of assessment, covering all three areas (teaching, scholarship, and service) and submits the letter according to instructions provided by the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion. These letters are due by November 15.

The responsibilities of the Teaching Evaluation Committee are as follows:

• Committee members review the teaching materials prepared for the Committee by the candidate.
• Committee members will coordinate with the candidate to schedule visits to classes during the fall semester of the review.
• Each member of the Committee will visit a minimum of three different class sessions. The Committee will meet with the candidate at the conclusion of the class visits to discuss its observations and findings.
• Each member of the Committee then prepares a letter detailing his or her observations of the classes. When a member of the Teaching Evaluation Committee is also a senior department/program member, the letter writer should identify himself or herself as such and write a single letter. This letter will include a more substantial discussion of the candidate’s teaching than will the standard evaluation letter. All letters are submitted according to instructions provided by the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion. This letter is due by November 15.

The responsibilities of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion are as follows:

• In the event that a member of the Committee is from the same departmental/program as (or has served on an ad hoc evaluation committee for) the candidate, that member is excluded from the discussion and formulation of the Committee’s recommendation.
• A designated representative for Academic Affairs and the Chair of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion select two outside reviewers from a list created by the candidate. The designated representative for Academic Affairs, in consultation with the Chair of the candidate’s department/program and with the Chair of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion, selects two additional reviewers.
• The Committee will apply the College’s standard of excellence in all three areas of assessment as described in Section VIII in assessing the performance of the candidate being reviewed over the entirety of his or her appointment at the College. The committee will be especially mindful of the particular expectations for scholarship as formulated by the academic department/program of the candidate.
• The Committee will request letters of evaluation of service/campus citizenship from three outside-of-the department/program colleagues/staff members selected by the candidate.
• If the candidate chose the option of soliciting an additional letter from a representative outside of the Rhodes College community, the Committee invites one of those individuals named by the candidate to submit a letter of evaluation concerning service.
• The Committee will distribute special surveys to the candidate’s advisees and students. In the assessment of teaching, only students with grades A through D- will be included. In addition to the special survey, the Committee will also review the record of teaching, as measured by the college-wide evaluation instrument, during the entirety of the candidate’s probationary years at the College.
• If the candidate chose the option of soliciting additional survey information from unofficial advisees and has stated the nature of their advising relationships, the Committee will distribute special surveys to the specified students.
• The Committee may seek any further information, not gathered as a result of the processes described above, where that information is essential in making a reasoned judgment about the candidate’s performance. While candidates for tenure cannot be privy to student, faculty, or outside colleague comments on their performance, they must be informed if the committee has questions about matters which the candidate can reasonably be expected to answer or clarify. In such cases, the candidate makes a written response which becomes a document available throughout the review process.
• The Committee may consult materials compiled for the second-year and/or the fourth-year reviews.
• The Committee will make a recommendation in regard to appointment with tenure and promotion to Associate Professor to the Vice President for Academic Affairs normally by February 15 (the recommendation is provided at the same time to the President). A positive recommendation means that the committee has established to its satisfaction that the candidate has met the College’s standard of excellence in teaching, scholarship, and service and that based on this comprehensive review the pattern of excellence evidenced in the candidate’s teaching, scholarship, and service can be expected to be a distinguishing mark of the candidate’s continued work at the College.
• By mid-February the committee will inform the candidate in writing of its recommendation, positive or negative, with an explanation of the Committee’s reasoning in reaching its recommendation.

The responsibilities of the Provost are as follows: 

• The Provost will review all information collected in the process of assessment. 
• The Provost will weigh the recommendation of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion, requesting from the Committee or its Chair additional information, if needed, to clarify the Committee’s recommendation. 
• The Provost will apply the College’s standard of excellence in all three areas of assessment as described in Section VIII in assessing the performance of the candidate being reviewed over the entirety of his or her appointment at the College, and will be especially mindful of the particular expectations for scholarship as formulated by the academic department/program of the candidate. 
• The Provost will make an independent recommendation for or against the granting of tenure which is then submitted, along with all materials collected in the process of assessment, to the President by early March. The Provost will meet with the President to discuss the recommendation. 
• Normally by mid-March the Provost will meet with the candidate and communicate his or her recommendation for or against the granting of tenure, along with that of the President. 
• After the meeting, the Provost will provide the candidate with a letter summarizing his or her recommendation. 
• The Provost will inform the Chair of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion and the candidate’s department/program Chair of both the Provost’s own recommendation and that of the President.

Personal circumstances may arise that warrant a delay in the tenure review of a faculty member. Examples may include, but are not limited to, the birth or adoption of a child or the need to care for a partner or family member who is seriously ill. In such cases, a faculty member is eligible to request a one-year postponement of the tenure review. This postponement will not change what is expected in the cumulative record of the faculty member in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service at the time of tenure consideration, even though the candidate will have been in the probationary period longer than six years. This extension of the probationary period is independent of and different from any full or partial leave of absence, although faculty who meet qualifications for the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) would also be eligible to request an extension of the probationary period. An extension of a faculty member’s service to seven or more years does not de facto grant tenure.

The faculty member wishing to request a postponement of the tenure review must submit this request in writing to the Provost, copying the department/program Chair. Requests normally will not be granted if made after the first Friday of March in the calendar year during which review materials are due to be submitted to the Tenure and Promotion Committee. In consultation with the department/program Chair and the Chief Human Resources Officer, the Provost will determine whether the extension will be granted. The Provost will issue a written reply to the faculty member, copying the department/program Chair and the Chief Human Resources Officer, within one month of the day the request was made. Requests for more than two postponements normally will not be granted. 

Overview: The review process is a comprehensive assessment of the work of a faculty member. It is a review of the work of the candidate since the beginning of his or her appointment as well as an attempt to gauge a trajectory of the candidate’s career at the college. A candidate for promotion must hold the Ph.D. degree or other appropriate terminal degree.

In the year prior to review, the candidate consults with the department/program Chair to discuss the viability of a promotion. The process for consideration begins with notification of intent to apply to the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion at the end of the academic year preceding the academic year in which the review takes place (early May). At the start of the year of the review, the candidate for promotion prepares an updated portfolio, described below. The Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion, the candidate’s department/program Chair, and the  Office of Academic Affairs then work together to gather all of the documentation required for the review. A number of steps are involved in this process:

• A designated representative for Academic Affairs and the Chair of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion assemble a Teaching Evaluation Committee, working in consultation with the candidate’s department/program Chair, and as specified in the PRS.
• The Chair of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion obtains a list of students taught by the candidate. These students receive a survey about the candidate’s teaching effectiveness. A similar list is prepared to include all of the advisees served by the candidate. These students will receive a survey about the candidate’s work as an advisor.
• The Chair of the Teaching Evaluation Committee convenes the committee, reviews the process of visitation, and oversees the timely preparation of letters for the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion.
• The Chair of the Committee on Tenure and Promotion invites those non-departmental/non-program colleagues named by the candidate to submit letters of evaluation concerning service to the College.
• The Chair of the department/program reviews the process of evaluation at the department/program level with the senior members of the department/program early in the semester of review, and oversees the scheduling of class visits for senior faculty not appointed to the Teaching Evaluation Committee. The Chair then convenes the department/program meeting to discuss the candidate’s performance at the end of the review process, and oversees the timely submission of letters for the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion.

When all of the review materials have been assembled, the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion evaluates the candidate’s record of teaching and service. Deliberation by the Tenure and Promotion Committee usually occurs late in the fall semester of the review year. This committee makes a recommendation for or against the granting of promotion to the Vice President for Academic Affairs by the end of the fall semester. The Vice President for Academic Affairs and the President undertake their own, respective, evaluations of the candidate’s record. The Vice President for Academic Affairs’s review of the case is completed by early March. The Vice President for Academic Affairs forwards his or her recommendation, along with the Tenure and Promotion Committee’s recommendation, to the President for review. The President’s decision, if positive, results in a recommendation for the granting of promotion that is sent to the Board of Trustees at their April Meeting. Promotion is granted to members of the Rhodes Faculty by the Board of Trustees on the recommendation of the President (typically at that same meeting).

In completing the assessment and determining that a recommendation in favor of granting promotion is appropriate, the consensus of the department/program Chair, the Vice President for Academic Affairs, and the President must be that there is a need in the area of the faculty member’s expertise and teaching competence. Nothing in this paragraph alters the nature of the term contract appointments of nontenurable faculty or confers tenure on nontenurable faculty.

A number of people or groups have roles in this process, and the responsibilities of each of these are outlined below.

The responsibilities of candidates for promotion without tenure are as follows:

1. Preparation of an updated portfolio in which the candidate presents relevant materials in support of the application for tenure. This portfolio would include the following

• A current curriculum vitae.
• A written statement about the candidate’s work that focuses on the candidate’s teaching and service at Rhodes College.
• Teaching materials including, but not limited to syllabi, exams, study questions, laboratory exercises.

2. Lists of the following possible evaluators:

• The names of four members of the Faculty nominated by the candidate to serve on the Teaching Evaluation Committee; these members are to be tenured Faculty from the department/program and/or related departments/programs as specified in the PRS.
• The names of three members of the Rhodes community (tenured faculty members and/or staff members) who can provide evaluations of service to the College. One of these three can be a faculty or staff member who has left or retired from the College in the past two years. 

The responsibilities of the senior members of the candidate’s department/program are as follows: 

• Senior members review the materials prepared for the department/program by the candidate.
• Senior members will observe at least one class during the semester of the review year. (Those senior members appointed to the Teaching Evaluation Committee will observe more classes, and their specific responsibilities are described below.)
• Senior members may seek further information, not gathered as a result of the processes described above, when that information is essential in making a reasoned judgment about the candidate’s performance. While candidates for promotion cannot be privy to student, faculty, or outside colleague comments on their performance, they must be informed if the department/program has questions about matters which the candidate can reasonably be expected to answer or clarify. In such instances, the candidate makes a written response which becomes a document available throughout the review process.
• As a group, senior members meet with the Chair of the department/program to discuss the performance of the candidate, as measured against the College’s standards for promotion. At the close of this meeting, each senior member will indicate whether or not, in her/his judgment, the candidate has met the College’s standard for excellent work in both areas of evaluation: teaching (as defined in Handbook section 7A) and service (section 7C). The purpose of this meeting of senior department /program colleagues is to provide the candidate a clear and direct indication of the judgment of their department/program colleagues, while still preserving confidentiality, and so senior members are asked here only to judge whether the candidate has met the College’s standards for promotion, or not. This meeting will take place no later than October 1.
• Following this meeting the department/program Chair will prepare a very brief letter to the candidate summarizing its outcome. This letter will not contain names or number of votes. This department/program letter shall be conveyed to the candidate by October 15, with copies sent to the Vice President for Academic Affairs and the Chair of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion.
• Each senior member of the department/program writes an individual letter of assessment, covering both areas (teaching and service) and submits the letter according to instructions provided by the Chair of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion. These letters are due by October 15. 

The responsibilities of the Teaching Evaluation Committee are as follows: 

• Committee members review the materials prepared for the Committee by the candidate.
• Committee members will coordinate with the candidate to schedule visits to classes during the fall semester of the review.
• Each member of the Committee will visit a minimum of three different class sessions. The Committee will meet with the candidate at the conclusion of the class visits to discuss its observations and findings.
• Each member of the Committee then prepares a letter detailing his or her observations of the classes. When a member of the Teaching Evaluation Committee is also a senior department/program member, the letter writer should identify himself or herself as such and write a single letter. This letter will include a more substantial discussion of the candidate’s teaching than will the standard evaluation letter. All letters are submitted according to instructions provided by the Chair of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion. This letter is due by October 15. 

The responsibilities of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion are as follows: 

• In the event that a member of the Committee is from the same department/program as (or has served on an ad hoc evaluation committee for) the candidate, that member is excluded from the discussion and formulation of the Committee’s recommendation.
• The Committee will apply the College’s standard of excellence in both areas of assessment as described in Section VIII in assessing the performance of the candidate being reviewed over the entirety of his or her appointment at the College.
• The Committee will request letters of evaluation of service/campus citizenship from three outside-of-the department/program colleagues/staff members selected by the candidate.
• The Committee will distribute special surveys to the candidate’s advisees and students. In the assessment of teaching, only students with grades A through D- will be included. In addition to the special survey, the Committee will also review the record of teaching, as measured by the college-wide evaluation instrument, during the entirety of the candidate’s years at the College.
• The Committee may seek any further information, not gathered as a result of the processes described above, where that information is essential in making a reasoned judgment about the candidate’s performance. While candidates for promotion cannot be privy to student, faculty, or outside colleague comments on their performance, they must be informed if the committee has questions about matters which the candidate can reasonably be expected to answer or clarify. In such cases, the candidate makes a written response which becomes a document available throughout the review process.
• The Committee may consult materials compiled for the three preceding tri-annual reviews.
• The Committee will make a recommendation in regard to promotion to Associate Professor to the Vice President for Academic Affairs normally by the end of the fall semester (the recommendation is provided at the same time to the President). A positive recommendation means that the committee has established to its satisfaction that the candidate has met the College’s standard of excellence in teaching and service and that based on this comprehensive review the pattern of excellence evidenced in the candidate’s teaching and service can be expected to be a distinguishing mark of the candidate’s continued work at the College.
• By mid-February the Committee will inform the candidate in writing of its recommendation, positive or negative, with an explanation of the Committee’s reasoning in reaching its recommendation. 

The responsibilities of the Vice President for Academic Affairs are as follows: 

• The Vice President for Academic Affairswill review all information collected in the process of assessment.
• The Vice President for Academic Affairswill weigh the recommendation of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion, requesting from the Committee or its Chair additional information, if needed, to clarify the Committee’s recommendation.
• The Vice President for Academic Affairswill apply the College’s standard of excellence in both areas of assessment as described in Section VIII in assessing the performance of the candidate being reviewed over the entirety of his or her appointment at the College.
• The Vice President for Academic Affairswill make an independent recommendation for or against the granting of promotion which is then submitted, along with all materials collected in the process of assessment, to the President by early January. The Vice President for Academic Affairswill meet with the President to discuss the recommendation.
• In mid-January the Vice President for Academic Affairswill meet with the candidate and communicate his or her recommendation for or against the granting of promotion, along with that of the President.
• At the end of the meeting, the Vice President for Academic Affairswill provide the candidate with a letter summarizing his or her recommendation.
• The Vice President for Academic Affairs will inform the Chair of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion and the candidate’s department/program Chair of both the Vice President’s own recommendation and that of the President.

Overview: Faculty members who achieve tenure at Rhodes College continue to develop as effective teachers and active scholars and as members who support in their service work the educational mission of the College. Tenured associate professors have a post-tenure review every six years, with a mid-period update at the third year. Tenured full professors have a post-promotion review every six years. The objective of these reviews is to provide opportunities for reflection and feedback on the tenured faculty member’s continued growth in teaching, scholarship, and service, and to provide a framework for discussions of long-term career planning, including, in the case of associate professors, promotion to professor.

Excellence as defined in Section VIII of the College Handbook remains the benchmark for tenured faculty. Excellence in the post-tenure period entails:

• A level of teaching effectiveness that maintains or exceeds the excellence required for tenure;
• Continued scholarly achievement, demonstrated by activities and outcomes appropriate for a recognized scholar in the field;
• Sustained and effective academic citizenship commensurate with level of experience.

The process for post-tenure review: During the first full academic year of service following the receipt of tenure, the faculty member prepares a non-binding prospectus of professional development for the next six years. This prospectus is written in consultation with the department/program Chair and filed with the Office of Academic Affairs. The prospectus addresses all three areas of evaluation. At six-year intervals thereafter until promotion to the rank of professor, the faculty member prepares a two-part professional development document, consisting of a reflection on the faculty member’s growth in teaching, scholarship, and service over the previous six-year period, and a prospectus for the next six years. The professional development document provides a framework for a review of the faculty member’s professional growth.

In the third year of each post-tenure review cycle, the faculty member prepares an update of the professional development document, indicating progress to date as well as any changes or updates to the prospectus. The faculty member presents this update and a current curriculum vitae to the department/program Chair. The department/program Chair also reviews whatever evidence of effective teaching seems appropriate to insure that the faculty member is continuing to meet the College’s standards of excellence in teaching. The faculty member and the department/program Chair meet to discuss the update along with any issues that may have arisen concerning teaching. The department/program Chair then sends a brief statement to the Vice President for Academic Affairs summarizing the outcome of that conversation. In the event that there are issues that appear to demand attention, the Vice President for Academic Affairs may request a meeting with the department/program Chair and/or the faculty member.

In early January of the post-tenure review year, the faculty member creates a portfolio containing:

• The professional development document
• A current curriculum vitae that includes
  • All scholarly or creative activity
  • Courses taught
  • Service to the College and the profession.
• Representative samples of course syllabi, exams, and assignments for courses taught during the previous six-year period, a list of any additional teaching (Directed Inquiries, undergraduate research/creative activity, honors research/creative activity, etc.), and a list of any new courses taught.
• Student evaluations from classes taught during the previous six-year period. Tenured faculty are required to have student evaluations conducted in one course each semester, selected in consultation with the department/program Chair to make sure that all types of teaching performed by the faculty member are represented in the review.

In addition to the portfolio, the department/program Chair reviews final grades given for all courses taught by the faculty member during the previous six-year period. This information is provided by the Data Services Office.

The department/program Chair meets with the faculty member to discuss the professional development document and the faculty member’s progress toward achieving career goals. The department/program Chair then writes an assessment of the faculty member’s professional growth which is sent to the Vice President for Academic Affairs, usually late in January. The Vice President or a designated representative and the department/program Chair meet in mid-February to discuss points of agreement and disagreement in the assessment. The Vice President for Academic Affairs or designated representative conveys in writing the results of these discussions to the faculty member being evaluated, with a copy to the department/program Chair. The faculty member is welcome to meet with the Vice President for Academic Affairs or designated representative, if desired, to discuss the outcome of the review; the department/program Chair may be invited to this meeting at the discretion of the Vice President for Academic Affairs or designated representative.

The process for post-promotion review: At six-year intervals after promotion to the rank of professor, the faculty member prepares a professional development document, consisting of a reflection on the faculty member’s growth in teaching, scholarship, and service over the previous six-year period, and a non-binding prospectus for the next six years. The prospectus may propose shifts in emphasis between scholarship or creative activity and service, as appropriate for the faculty member’s career trajectory. In early January the faculty member provides to the department/program Chair the professional development document and a current curriculum vitae. The department/program Chair meets with the faculty member to discuss the professional development document and the faculty member’s progress toward achieving career goals. The department/program Chair then writes an assessment of the faculty member’s career growth which is sent to the Vice President for Academic Affairs, usually late in January. The Vice President for Academic Affairs or a designated representative and the department/program Chair meet in mid-February to discuss points of agreement and disagreement in the assessment. The Vice President for Academic Affairs or designated representative conveys in writing the results of these discussions to the faculty member being evaluated, with a copy to the department/program Chair. The faculty member is welcome to meet with the Vice President for Academic Affairs or designated representative, if desired, to discuss the outcome of the review; the department/program Chair may be invited to this meeting at the discretion of the Vice President for Academic Affairs or designated representative.

Reviews of department chairs: If the faculty member under review is a department/program Chair, the review normally will be conducted by some other senior member of the department/program designated by the Vice President for Academic Affairs.

Remediation: In rare and extreme cases, in either the post-tenure review or the post-promotion review, a faculty member may receive an assessment indicating that the faculty member has failed to meet the College’s standards of excellence in one or more areas of evaluation. In such cases, the faculty member will develop, in consultation with the Vice President for Academic Affairs and the department/program Chair, a plan for improvement that addresses the area(s) of deficiency and a timeline for improvement. In accordance with a schedule specified by the timeline, the Vice President for Academic Affairs and the department/program Chair will evaluate the faculty member’s work in removing the deficiency. After two years, if the Vice President for Academic Affairs determines that the faculty member has not shown evidence of improvement in the designated area(s), the salary of the faculty member will continue without increases until the level of achievement is deemed by the Vice President for Academic Affairs to be appropriate; that is, the salary will be frozen at the level of salary in the second year after the review. At the conclusion of the period specified in the timeline, should performance not meet the level of achievement specified in the plan for improvement, the Vice President for Academic Affairs will determine an appropriate response.

At the time of a negative review, the faculty member may request a review of the matter. The Tenure and Promotion Committee will hear the petition from the member of the Faculty, and the Committee will make a recommendation to the Vice President for Academic Affairs. The Committee’s recommendation will become part of the official record maintained at the College.

Overview: Promotion to the rank of Professor recognizes a sustained trajectory of significant achievement in teaching, scholarship, and service to the College since the appointment to Associate Professor. Given the need for an extensive period of time in which to establish such a trajectory, application for promotion to Professor normally occurs six years or more after promotion to Associate Professor. In teaching, the successful candidate should have maintained or exceeded the level of teaching effectiveness achieved for tenure. In scholarship, there should be concrete evidence of scholarly productivity that has contributed significantly to the candidate’s professional profile. In service, the candidate should demonstrate a level of meaningful and effective service to the College beyond that required for tenure. Potential candidates are encouraged to discuss their plans for promotion with their department/program Chairs and a designate of the Office of Academic Affairs.

The Process: The process for consideration begins with notification of intent to apply to the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion at the end of the academic year preceding the academic year in which the review takes place (early May). By May 31 (preceding the academic year of review), the candidate for promotion submits the names of at least six outside reviewers of professional work. The due date for submission of materials will be early August. The Faculty Committee will consider the application in the fall semester.

The candidate for promotion prepares an updated portfolio according to instructions provided by the Chair of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion.

Participation in the review process:  Normally every senior member of a candidate’s department/program participates in the review process; the minimum number of reviewers is three. In cases where fewer than three senior members of the department/program exist, the Vice President for Academic Affairs, in consultation with the Chair of the Department/Program, will appoint ad hoc members of the faculty to bring the number of participants in the review up to three. These external faculty will act in the capacity of senior departmental/program members for the purposes of the candidate’s evaluation, and their assessments of the candidate will be given equal weight with assessments from faculty within the candidate’s department/program. In selecting faculty, the Vice President for Academic Affairs will consult with an Associate Dean of Academic Affairs, the candidate, and the candidate’s department/program chair.

For all faculty with significant interdisciplinary teaching commitments, regardless of the size of the home department, the Vice President for Academic Affairs will normally invite the Chair or another senior member of the relevant interdisciplinary programs to evaluate the faculty as an ad hoc member of the candidate’s department.

The responsibilities of candidates for promotion are as follows:

1. Preparation of an updated portfolio in which the candidate presents relevant materials in support of the application for promotion. This portfolio would include the following:

• A letter, or personal statement, addressing qualifications for promotion in the areas of teaching, scholarship activities, and service (These letters typically average from 4-5 typed, double-spaced pages.)
• A current curriculum vitae, including a complete bibliography of published work or evidence of creative activity;
• A representative sample of syllabi, examinations, and class or laboratory exercises covering the period since the appointment to Associate Professor;
• Copies of publications, evidence of creative activity, and other materials related to professional work since the appointment to Associate Professor;
• An optional research statement that outlines the current and future trajectory of their scholarly work and/or places their scholarly work in the context of an overall strategy for external reviewers. 

2.  Lists of the following possible evaluators:

A-Required:

• Names of at least six (6) outside evaluators of scholarly production or creative works (These persons should be recognized scholars in the discipline; none of them should have a personal, vested stake in the professional standing of the candidate; the candidate should describe the extent of the acquaintance with the outside evaluators and indicate what work each outside evaluator is in a position to review.);
• Names of three (3) members of the Faculty from outside the candidate’s department/program and/or College staff who can comment on the candidate’s citizenship at the College. One of these three can be a faculty or staff member who has left or retired from the College in the previous two years.

B-Optional:

• If the candidate chooses the option of soliciting an additional letter from a representative outside of the Rhodes College community that focuses on the candidate’s service performance and campus citizenship, then the candidate may provide the names of up to three individuals outside of the Rhodes community.
• If the candidate chooses the option of soliciting additional survey information from students that the candidate considers unofficial advisees, then the candidate may provide the names of these students and state the nature of their advising relationship with them.

The responsibilities of the senior members of the candidate’s department/program, and of faculty acting in this capacity, are:

• To review the portfolio prepared for the department/program by the candidate being reviewed;
• To be especially mindful of the particular expectations for scholarly performance as prescribed for the academic department/program of the candidate as specified in the PRS;
• To seek further information, not gathered as a result of the processes described above, where that information is essential in making a reasoned judgment about the candidate’s performance;
• To write an individual letter of assessment that is submitted according to instructions provided by the Chair of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion. (In the case that the letter is written by a Professor in the Faculty, a recommendation in regard to the promotion is made; in the case that the letter is written by an Associate Professor in the Faculty, an evaluation without a recommendation is offered.)

The responsibilities of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion are:

• In the event that a member of the Committee is from the same department/program as the candidate being reviewed, that member is excluded from the discussion and formulation of the Committee’s recommendation;
• In the event that a member of the Committee is a candidate to be considered for promotion, that member resigns from the Committee;
• The Chair of the Committee and a designated representative for Academic Affairs select two (2) outside evaluators for the candidate’s scholarly work, taken from the list provided by the candidate, and select two (2) additional outside evaluators after consultation with the Chair of the department/program;
• To apply the standards as prescribed in Section VIII above in assessing the performance of the candidate being reviewed since the appointment of the candidate as an Associate Professor at the College;
• To be especially mindful of the particular expectations for scholarly performance as prescribed for the academic department/program of the candidate and as specified in the PRS;
• To collect information about teaching effectiveness and student advising duties from special student surveys, including interviews with students, if deemed necessary;
• The Committee will distribute special surveys to the candidate’s advisees and students. In the assessment of teaching, only students with grades A through D- will be included; In addition to the special survey, the Committee will also review the record of teaching, as measured by the college-wide evaluation instrument since the appointment of the candidate as an Associate Professor at the College;
• If the candidate chose the option of soliciting additional survey information from unofficial advisees and has stated the nature of their advising relationships, the Committee will distribute special surveys to the specified students.
• If the candidate chose the option of soliciting an additional letter from a representative outside of the Rhodes College community, the Committee invites one of those individuals named by the candidate to submit a letter of evaluation concerning service.
• To seek further information, not gathered as a result of the processes described above, where that information is essential in making a reasoned judgment about the candidate’s achievements;
• To make a recommendation in regard to appointment with promotion to Professor to the Vice President for Academic Affairs on or about December 5 (the recommendation is provided at the same time to the President); and,
• To inform the candidate, normally by mid-December, of the result of the recommendation, positive or negative, made by the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion, with an explanation of the Committee’s reasoning in reaching its recommendation.

The responsibilities of the Vice President for Academic Affairs are:

• In cases where a candidate’s department/program contains fewer than three senior faculty members, to select senior faculty from outside of the candidate’s home department/program who have first-hand experience of the candidate’s work in the areas of teaching, research, and/or service to act as senior departmental/program members for the purposes of the candidate’s evaluation.
• To obtain, with the assistance of a designated representative for Academic Affairs, the agreement of outside evaluators to review the candidate’s scholarly work and to submit in a timely fashion a report of these evaluations to the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion;
• To be especially mindful of the particular expectations for scholarly performance as prescribed for the academic department/program of the candidate and as specified in the PRS;
• To review all information collected in the process of assessment;
• To weigh the recommendation of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion, requesting from the Committee or its Chair additional information, if needed, to clarify the Committee’s recommendation;
• To make an independent recommendation which is then submitted with all materials collected in the process of assessment to the President; this is to be done on or about January 10 (If the President agrees with a recommendation to promote, the President forwards this recommendation to the Board of Trustees for action.); and,
• To inform the candidate of the result of the recommendation, positive or negative, made by the Vice President for Academic Affairs, with an explanation of the Vice President for Academic Affairs′ reasoning in reaching his or her recommendation.

In the event that a review for promotion reaches a negative outcome, the faculty member must wait at least three years from the date of the previous application before reapplying for consideration.

If contract extension beyond the fifth year is denied as a result of the fourth-year review, the Provost will inform the candidate at a meeting of the Provost, the department/program Chair, and the candidate, usually in December; notice will also be provided to the candidate in writing.

If tenure is denied, the Provost will so inform the candidate, normally on or about March 15. The Provost will meet with the candidate denied tenure to discuss with the candidate the reasons for denial. A statement summarizing the Provost’s findings, which preserves the confidentiality of the process, shall be provided to the candidate.

If promotion to Professor is denied, the Provost will so inform the candidate, normally on or about January 15. The Provost will meet with the candidate denied promotion to discuss with the candidate the reasons for denial. A statement summarizing the Provost’s findings, which preserves the confidentiality of the process, shall be provided to the candidate.

The faculty member denied contract extension at the fourth-year review, or denied tenure or promotion to Professor, may appeal the decision on the grounds that it was made capriciously or not in conformity with the established procedures. The faculty member must notify the Provost in writing of their intent to appeal the decision within ten calendar days of being notified that contract extension, tenure, or promotion was denied. For purposes of this section, an action is taken “capriciously” if it is a “willful and unreasonable action taken without consideration or in disregard of facts or without determining principle.”

A written appeal must then be submitted to the Provost, the President, and the Faculty Appeals Committee no later than twenty calendar days after the submission of the notice of intent to appeal. The appeal must specify what procedure is alleged to have been violated and/or in what way the decision is alleged to have been made capriciously. In making the appeal, as throughout the tenure process and promotion process, the burden of proof rests with the faculty member.

In considering the appeal, the Faculty Appeals Committee will review all pertinent information supplied by the Provost, including recommendations by the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion and the Provost, and will conduct interviews limited to the alleged capriciousness or violation of procedure described in the appeal.

The role of the Faculty Appeals Committee is to advise the President to uphold or reconsider the Provost’s recommendation. The Appeals Committee will provide a written report to the Provost and the President. The report will contain findings of fact and conclusions as to whether or not the original decision was reached capriciously or procedures were violated. In the event the committee finds there were violations sufficient to warrant reconsideration, the Appeals Committee will recommend in its report that the President review the original decision. If the committee is divided, a minority report also will be filed.

A statement summarizing the Appeals Committee findings, which preserves the confidentiality of the process, will be made available to the candidate. The summary will indicate if the decision was unanimous. If the Appeals Committee asks the President to review a previous recommendation, the President may overturn or uphold the Provost’s recommendation. In either case, the President will determine the final College position on the matter. If the President’s decision is positive on tenure or promotion, it is sent to the Board of Trustees for action at the April meeting. If the President’s decision is negative on tenure or promotion, a statement summarizing the President’s findings and rationale, which preserves the confidentiality of the proceedings, will be provided to the candidate.

At the conclusion of the process, the Provost’s, the Appeals Committee’s, and, if applicable, the President’s summary statement to the candidate will be provided to the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion.

Persons holding non-tenure track appointments to the faculty have responsibilities that vary by department/program. These areas of responsibility are specified in their term appointment contract of employment. Individuals appointed on term appointments who serve as Instructor or Assistant Professor will be evaluated in the second year of their first three years and then in the third year of their subsequent three years. Individuals on term appointments who serve as Associate Professor without tenure will be evaluated every six years after that promotion.

Review of Instructor or Assistant Professor. This term appointment review is conducted in the fall semester by the faculty member’s department/program Chair. The candidate will prepare an updated portfolio for this review. The department/program Chair will review materials on teaching and service. The department/program Chair (or, with the approval of the Vice President for Academic Affairs, a designated senior colleague in the department/program) will also observe three of the candidate’s classes in the fall semester of the review year. Additionally, the department/program Chair will review the candidate’s college-wide student evaluations and grade distributions for all classes taught during the review period.

The department Chair will receive input from at least two senior members of the department. The program Chair will receive input from at least two senior faculty members in the program or faculty designated by the Vice President for Academic Affairs. Faculty housed in departments but engaged in significant interdisciplinary scholarship or significant and regular teaching in interdisciplinary programs will be evaluated by the department Chair and two other senior faculty, normally the program Chair and a senior faculty member designated by the Vice President for Academic Affairs in consultation with the Chairs. Input from these senior department/program members will be informed by observations from class visits during the fall semester. These senior members of the department/program will meet as a group with the department/program Chair to discuss their observations and findings.

The department/program Chair will then make a determination regarding the candidate’s progress in teaching and service using the description of performance described in the previous section (Section VIII). The department/program Chair will meet with the candidate to discuss this assessment.

The department/program Chair’s written assessment of the candidate’s progress is sent to the Vice President for Academic Affairs, usually late in November. The Vice President for Academic Affairs or a designated representative will have an initial meeting with the department/program Chair to discuss the assessment of the candidate’s progress. The Vice President for Academic Affairs or a designated representative will provide a written summary of the outcome of the review, focusing on the candidate’s progress in each category of evaluation, with recommendations for improvement when necessary.

Review of Associate Professor without tenure. Faculty members who have been promoted to the rank of Associate Professor without tenure have a review every six years. The objective of this review is to provide opportunities for reflection and feedback on the faculty member’s continued growth in teaching and service.

In January of the term appointment review year, the faculty member creates a portfolio containing:

• The professional development document: a two-part document consisting of a reflection on teaching and service over the previous six-year period and a prospectus for the next six years.
• A current curriculum vitae that includes
  • Courses taught
  • Service to the College or profession
• Representative samples of course syllabi, exams, and assignments for courses taught during the previous six-year period, a list of any additional teaching (Directed Inquiries, undergraduate research/creative activity, honors research/creative activity, etc.), and a list of any new courses taught.
• Student evaluations from classes taught during the previous six-year period. Faculty who have been promoted to the rank of Associate Professor without tenure are required to have student evaluations conducted in one course each semester, selected in consultation with the department/program Chair to make sure that all types of teaching performed by the faculty member are represented in the review.

In addition to the portfolio, the department/program Chair reviews final grades given for all courses taught by the faculty member during the previous six-year period. This information is provided by the Data Services Office.

The department/program Chair meets with the faculty member to discuss the professional development document and the faculty member’s progress toward achieving career goals. The department/program Chair then writes an assessment of the faculty member’s professional growth, sent to the Vice President for Academic Affairs in late January. The Vice President or a designated representative and the department/program Chair meet in mid-February to discuss the assessment. The Vice President for Academic Affairs or designated representative conveys in writing the results of these discussions to the faculty member being evaluated, with a copy to the department/program Chair. The faculty member is welcome to meet with the Vice President for Academic Affairs or designated representative, if desired, to discuss the outcome of the review; the department/program Chair may be invited to this meeting at the discretion of the Vice President for Academic Affairs or designated representative.

In rare and extreme cases, an Associate Professor without tenure may receive an assessment indicating that the faculty member has failed to meet the College’s standards of excellence in one or both areas of evaluation. In such cases, the faculty member will develop, in consultation with the Vice President for Academic Affairs and the department/program Chair, a plan for improvement that addresses the area(s) of deficiency. Two years after that review, the Vice President for Academic Affairs and the department/program Chair will evaluate the faculty member’s work in removing the deficiency. After that evaluation, if the Vice President for Academic Affairs determines that the faculty member has not shown evidence of improvement in the designated area(s), the faculty member will not have their term appointment contract renewed after one additional year. The additional year constitutes the twelve months’ notice of non-reappointment.