VI. Appendix:  School of Continuing Studies Standards and Processes for Promotion

This Appendix in its entirety must be consistent with University principles stipulated under "Evaluation for Personnel Decisions" (Chapter III, Section C).  Revisions to a school's section of this Appendix may be proposed by a majority vote of the particular school's faculty, and transmitted by the Dean for separate majority vote by the University Faculty.  The Provost and President then transmit the proposed revisions for vote by the Board of Trustees.

______________________________________________________________________

1. Introduction
2. Promotion Expectations
3. Promotion Processes

____________________________________________________________________

A. Introduction

Effective from the October 1999 Board of Trustees meeting, full-time faculty in the School of Continuing Studies are eligible for promotion in rank without tenure through the rank of full professor.  The proposal approved by the Board is attached. In essence, it indicates the following:

• an initial probationary appointment of up to three (3) years.
• subsequent appointments of up to five (5) years.
• eligibility for promotion from assistant to associate professor to commence with the second appointment (first 5-year appointment); eligibility for promotion from associate to full professor to commence with the third appointment (second 5-year appointment);
• Note: It is important to note that candidates seeking promotion to full professor will be judged by both their record since achieving the rank of associate professor as well as by their total contributions across the criteria. Additionally, candidates are expected to have a record of accomplishments in each area - teaching, scholarship, service and program development.

The purpose of this document is to specify the criteria to be used in promotion decisions as well as to outline the process by which decisions on promotion will be made.  The primary criteria to be used in making promotion decisions include teaching, scholarship, service, and program development.  It is important to recognize, however, that each faculty member in the School of Continuing Studies is charged annually with specific objectives in each of the criteria.  Those objectives, articulated in a letter from the Dean to the faculty member and specific to that individual, should form the basis for any assessment for promotion.  The letters from the Dean should address each of the standards relevant for that individual.  For example, it is possible that one candidate could be judged solely on the basis of "teaching" and "program development" while another judged on "teaching", "service" and "scholarship."  Further and given that the School is the University's primary outreach arm, these criteria will be assessed in the context of how well the candidate helps extend the reach of the University to the community at large.

Note:  This document also applies to administrators within the School seeking promotion.  It is important to recognize that while the criteria apply, there may be exceptions to the process in terms of the requisite timelines.

B. Promotion Expectations

1. Teaching
   1. Standard: The standard to be used is excellence in teaching.
   2. Criteria: Numerous criteria are available for use in judging teaching effectiveness. Included are those listed below.
      • ability to design courses and present material effectively
      • level of preparation
      • effectiveness of teaching methods
      • quality of interaction with students both inside and outside the classroom
      • adequacy of exams and other testing material
      • adequacy of comments on student work
      • timeliness of feedback on student work
      • interest in and involvement with student welfare
   3. Evaluation: The instruments available to help evaluate teaching effectiveness include (but are not limited to) those listed below.
      • student evaluations
      • peer reviews
      • letters from past students
      • personnel evaluations from the Dean
      • course materials, including syllabi, exams, class assignments
      • online courseware
      • student work products, including papers, projects and exams
      • statements of past activities and future plans to enhance teaching effectiveness
      • innovations in instructional methods
      • self-evaluation
      • teaching awards
      • grade distribution statistics (compared against student evaluations)
2. Scholarship
   1. Standard: Scholarship generally involves the generation, transmission, application or preservation of knowledge.  In the School of Continuing Studies, it may include the investigation of both theory and practice of an academic discipline or in the field of continuing education.
   2. Criteria: The criteria used to assess scholarship include journal articles, books, presentations at professional conferences, book chapters, media broadcasts, op ed pieces, and published instructional materials (videos, assessment instruments, etc).
   3. Evaluation: Information used to evaluate a candidate's achievements as a scholar include (but are not limited to) those listed below.
      • copies of published work (or works in progress)
      • curriculum vitae
      • copies of instructional materials
      • copies of professional presentations
      • candidate's statement of future research plans
      • letters from outside reviewers regarding the quality of published work
      • letters indicating acceptance of manuscripts for publication
3. Service
   1. Standard: Service to both the campus community and the community-at-large plays a unique and critical role in the mission of the School of Continuing Studies. Specifically, the School is charged with providing "exemplary credit and non-credit programs" to meet community needs.  Additionally, the School is charged with supporting the missions of both the University and other units across campus.
      
      Faculty members are expected to engage with both communities and play effective roles in the affairs of the school and the University.
   2. Criteria: Faculty are expected to serve on committees on campus, to advise and counsel students, and generally to participate in the non-curricular life of the School and the University.  Externally, faculty members are encouraged to serve as advocates for and representatives of the School and University through service in professional, civic or community organizations.   Consulting, public speaking engagements, and other activities involving the faculty member's professional expertise are also expected and should be included in assessing faculty performance in this area.
   3. Evaluation: The evidence used to document service may include but is not limited to the items listed below.
      • curriculum vitae listing committee and other service assignments, consulting, speaking engagements, memberships and service to external organizations
      • candidate statement regarding contributions in these areas
      • letters from committee chairs, advisees, or anyone to whom the candidate has provided service
4. Program Development
   1. Standard: Each full-time faculty member is also a program director and is therefore responsible for the overall well being of the program under his or her charge.
   2. Criteria: The criteria available to assess programmatic development include those listed below.
      • curricular reviews and enhancements
      • faculty recruitment, support and development
      • new program development (credit and non-credit)
      • marketing and student recruitment activities
   3. Evaluation: Candidates can demonstrate their role in program development through a variety of means, including but not limited to those listed below.
      • statement of program development activities
      • course/program proposals
      • letters from faculty
      • marketing proposals and activities

Note:  Whenever external letters are included as part of the supporting documentation for any of the above criteria, the committee chair is asked to seek sources independent of those used by the candidate.

C. Promotion Processes

Candidates for promotion must request review from the Dean by September 1 and submit a portfolio documenting how they have met the standards.  The Dean is charged with convening the Promotion Committee and presenting the candidate's portfolio to the committee.  The committee meets, selects a chair, reviews the portfolio, and makes a recommendation to the Provost.  The Dean reviews the recommendation and notes his or her own recommendation to the Provost.  Promotion recommendations are made once each year and are due to the Provost by December 15.

Typical Promotion Calendar

Note:  The Promotion Committee of the Academic Council includes the three representatives from Arts & Sciences, one representative each from the Jepson School of Leadership Studies, the E. Claiborne Robins School of Business, and the School of Law, plus any full-time School of Continuing Studies faculty members who have achieved the rank being sought by the candidate under consideration.  The candidate may request an outside reviewer from the candidate's discipline.

This version approved by the School of Continuing Studies Faculty
and Academic Council on October 4, 2007
Approved by University Faculty on November 7, 2007
Approved by the Board of Trustees on March 7, 2008

Revisions to Section C approved by SCS Faculty on May 7, 2009,
the Board of Trustees on May 8, 2009,
and the University Faculty on May 11, 2009