Evaluation of Faculty

Adopted by Academic Policies and Curriculum Committee 11/10/15; Adopted by Faculty Senate 12/11/15; Adopted by the President 2/14/16; Revised March 2022, December 2022; Approved by Academic Policies and Curriculum Committee 5/8/23; Approved by Faculty Senate 5/19/23; Approved by President's Cabinet 8/9/23

Evaluation of Faculty - Policies and Procedures

Institutional changes were guided by updates made to the Board of Regents (BOR) Policy Manual: 8.3 Additional Policies for Faculty and the University System of Georgia (USG) Academic Affairs Handbook: Section 4.0: Academic Personnel.

On October 13, 2021, the BOR approved changes to Post-Tenure and Annual Review Policy (8.3). Changes included or impacted the following areas:

1. addition of student success as a key element of faculty evaluation;
2. expansion of the use of annual evaluations for tenured faculty;
3. addition of the corrective post-tenure review;
4. articulation of actions following an unsuccessful post-tenure review;
5. annual reporting on PTR to the BOR; and
6. delegation of authority for awarding tenure.

Provost Sharman created three faculty committees to review and revise the relevant East Georgia State College policies and procedures. Each committee addressed a different aspect of the policy changes as it related to:

- Annual evaluation of faculty
- Promotion and Tenure (P&T)
- Post-tenure Review (PTR)

The committees submitted recommendations to the Provost in March 2022. Further updates were made to the PTR submission based on feedback from the USG office in September. Further revisions were completed in March 2023. USG approval was received in April 2023. EGSC faculty governance approval was completed May 2023.

Policies and Regulations Governing Annual Evaluation of Faculty

Institutional policies align with the Board of Regents (BOR) Policy Manual: 8.3 Additional Policies for Faculty and the University System of Georgia (USG) Academic Affairs Handbook: Section 4.0: Academic Personnel.

Overview

Faculty are evaluated annually by their appropriate supervisor as defined by East Georgia State College (EGSC) against the minimum criteria listed in the BOR Policy 8.3.5.1 and BOR Policy 8.3.7.3. The annual evaluation will be appropriate to East Georgia State College’s mission and encompass

1. teaching;
2. student success activities;
3. research/scholarship/creative activity or academic achievement;
4. professional service to the institution or community; and
5. continuous professional growth.

East Georgia State College expects all its faculty members to prioritize teaching, emphasizing best practices for engaging students. Student evaluations of teaching are conducted each semester to provide instructors with feedback. Annual evaluations may also incorporate a system of peer evaluations, with emphasis placed on the faculty member’s professional development.

Since East Georgia State College is an access institution that grants primarily associates degrees, faculty must direct a large portion of their professional time and energies to instruction and other student success activities. Therefore, in keeping with the college mission, service, professional development, and academic achievement should be broadly defined. Examples of faculty activities and accomplishments which may be attributed to each of the evaluated areas are found in the attached appendix.

EGSC Campus Coordinators must ensure that workload percentages for faculty roles and responsibilities are factored into the performance evaluation model in a consistent manner. The overall evaluation must indicate whether the faculty member is making satisfactory progress toward the next level of review appropriate to their rank, tenure status, and career stage.

Per USG Policy, performance will be evaluated using a 5-point Evaluation Likert Scale.

Evaluation Likert Scale

The following scale with descriptions will be used for all evaluation points for all faculty members, tenure track and non-tenure track. Evaluation points include annual evaluation of faculty, pre-tenure review, tenure, promotion, and post-tenure review.

1. Does Not Meet Expectations: Rating for faculty whose performance clearly fails to meet requirements for the duties and responsibilities of the position. Improved performance is expected and required as a condition of continued employment.
2. Needs Improvement: Rating for faculty whose performance has approached, but not yet met, requirements for the duties and responsibilities of the position.
3. Meets Expectations: Rating for faculty whose performance consistently meets requirements for the duties and responsibilities of the position.
4. Exceeds Expectations: Rating for faculty whose performance clearly and consistently exceeds requirements for the duties and responsibilities of the position.
5. Exemplary: Rating for faculty whose performance far exceeds requirements for the duties and responsibilities of the position on a consistent basis.

NOTE: Noteworthy achievement as referenced in BOR Policy 8.3.7.3 is reflective of a 4 or 5 on the above Likert Scale. Deficient and unsatisfactory as referenced throughout this document is reflective of a 1 or a 2 on the Likert Scale.

Procedures

1. The faculty member is responsible for providing documentation and materials for the annual evaluation. Documentation must include the Faculty Annual Report and Student Course Evaluations (ratings and comments). All documentation must be submitted to the Campus Coordinator by February 1 (or the next business day if February 1 falls on weekend).
2. The Campus Coordinator will review the faculty submission and complete the Faculty Evaluation Report. Feedback on performance will be based on the Evaluation Likert Scale and written comments.
3. The Campus Coordinator will meet with the faculty member to discuss the content of the Faculty Evaluation Report and his/her progression towards achieving future milestones. This meeting should occur no later than April 15 (or the next business day if April 15 falls on weekend) of the year following the calendar year to which the evaluation applies.
4. The faculty member will sign a statement to the effect that he/she has been apprised of the content of the Faculty Evaluation Report.
5. The faculty member will be given 10 working days to respond in writing to the Faculty Evaluation Report, with this response to be attached to the evaluation.
6. The Campus Coordinator will acknowledge in writing the receipt of the response, noting changes, if any, in the Faculty Evaluation Report made as a result of either the conference or the faculty member’s written response. This response should be made within 10 working days from the faculty member’s rebuttal/response. This acknowledgement will also become a part of the official personnel records. Annual reviews are not subject to discretionary review.
7. If the performance in any of the categories is judged to be a 1 – Does Not Meet Expectations or a 2 – Needs Improvement, the faculty member must be provided with a Performance Remediation Plan (PRP) to remediate their performance during the next year. The Campus Coordinator will develop the PRP in consultation with the faculty member. This will become part of the official personnel records.

Performance Remediation Plan (PRP)

The Performance Remediation Plan is used to document faculty deficiencies based on the outcomes from the annual review. The purpose of the PRP is designed to enable the faculty member to correct unsatisfactory performance in some aspect of their role or responsibilities. The plan must be approved by the Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs and submitted to the Office of Academic Affairs. Two meetings during the fall semester and two during the spring semester must be held to review progress, document additional needs/resources, and planned accomplishments for the upcoming quarter. After each meeting, the Campus Coordinator should summarize the meeting and indicate if the faculty member is on track to complete the PRP. Consequences for failure to meet the expectations of the PRP must be stated at the conclusion of each meeting.

The PRP plans should include the following components:

- Clearly defined goals or outcomes,
- An outline of activities to be undertaken,
- A timetable,
- Available resources and supports,
- Expectations for improvement
- Monitoring strategy

APPENDIX: Examples of Faculty Activities or Accomplishments for Evaluated Areas

Note: The list of sample activities and accomplishments is not exclusive and the completion of a specific activity or activities or receipt of a specific award or accolade does not guarantee a specific Likert scale score. Campus Coordinators will provide fair, consistent, and impartial evaluations based upon their professional assessments of the faculty member’s performance.

Teaching
1. 1. Receipt of awards, honors, or recognitions for teaching excellence;
  2. Receipt of student comments or letters from students that testify to the instructor’s abilities to inspire student interest and to stimulate their work;
  3. Receipt of peer evaluations by colleagues who have team-taught with the instructor, used instructional materials designed by the instructor, or have taught the instructor’s students in subsequent courses;
  4. Clearly communicated expectations for the course, all tasks, and assessments; and clearly identified all deadlines;
  5. Posted weekly overviews, welcome videos, and held virtual office hours in addition to the institution’s required in-person office hours.
  6. Provided prompt feedback on assessments (e.g., used D2L to enter grades within 24-72 hours; provided feedback and methods of improvement to online students in addition to grades);
  7. Provided feedback that was constructive, communicated high expectations, and suggested ways for improvement;
  8. Provided a wide variety of resources to support different types of learners;
  9. Provided enhanced online instructional delivery by using a variety of techniques and strategies to meet the individual needs of different types of learners;
  10. Used Open Education Resource (OER) textbooks to help students reduce costs;
  11. Used PowerPoint slides and other visual medium to increase students' retention and success;
  12. Demonstrated successful integration of teaching and research or teaching and service in ways that benefit students;
  13. Demonstrated student accomplishments related to the course;
  14. Promoted self-reflection within content areas to create a meaningful view of the content;
  15. Developed or significantly revised existing programs and courses;
  16. Developed a sense of belonging in the classroom by encouraging communication and cooperation between students and/or students and faculty;
  17. Created and/or implemented substantial, innovative, or creative assignments and activities;
  18. Created and/or implemented student learning assessments (e.g., tests, essay prompts, projects) and grading rubrics;
  19. Placed emphasis on active learning (e.g., think-pair-share exercises, group work, self-assessment, reflections, various in-class activities);
  20. Used metacognitive strategies in teaching to promote greater understanding and deeper learning;
  21. Used D2L services for students to turn in work digitally and save money on printing costs;
  22. Prepared innovative teaching materials, instructional techniques, curricula, or programs of study for use in the classroom;
  23. Submitted an annotated bibliography of books read, related to teaching, with a summary assessment of how the materials impacted the instructor’s teaching abilities;
  24. Attended conferences or workshops that focused on teaching;
Student Success Activities
1. 1. Provided regular student advising and mentoring;
  2. Provided tutoring in the Academic Center for Excellence (ACE);
  3. Provided students with additional tutoring opportunities outside of the ACE;
  4. Provided for readily available student contact opportunities outside of the classroom (e.g., through email, face-to-face meetings, video conferencing, and telephone communication during office hours);
  5. Provided timely and meaningful student feedback on assessments and discussed ways for improvement.
  6. Applied methodologies such as Transparency in Learning and Teaching (TiLT) in course design;
  7. Sponsored or advised student clubs;
  8. Created, hosted, or assisted with academic events such as science fairs, art exhibitions, theatre performances, or student presentations of original research;
  9. Created, hosted, or assisted with student activities such as concerts, films, art opening, and poetry readings;
  10. Encouraged and monitored student participation in The Hoopee Bird student newsletter or in the Wiregrass literary and art journal;
  11. Taught Student Learning Community (SLC) courses;
  12. Participated in a Faculty Learning Communities (FLC);
  13. Participated in the Chancellor’s Learning Scholars Program;
  14. Participated in the Governor’s Teaching Fellows Program;
  15. Participated in MomentumU@USG training programs;
  16. Created classroom or field trip experiences to enhance content delivery;
  17. Engaged students in the classroom through Active Learning (e.g., think-pair-share exercises, group work, self-assessment, reflections, discussions, peer teaching, journaling, roleplaying);
  18. Shared on-campus and online student success resources with students;
Research/Scholarship/Creative Activity or Academic Achievement
1. 1. Receipt of awards, honors, or recognitions for research or scholarship;
  2. Receipt of project funding, grants, commissions, and/or contracts;
  3. Receipt of grants related to instruction or to innovative teaching activities or stipends for students;
  4. Authorship of applied research publications (e.g., articles, manuals, agricultural extension documents);
  5. Attended institutional or external training seminars, workshops, meetings related to enhancing skills needed to better perform duties associated with teaching, advising, scholarship, or service;
  6. Participated in activities related to education such as methodology, approaches, textbooks, lecture notes, and/or assessment techniques that reflect the instructor’s expertise and contributions to the field of higher education;
  7. Presented scholarly papers or posters at academic or research conferences;
  8. Provided abstracts for publications of research, books, articles, journalism, art, literature;
  9. Provided scholarly reviews of publications, exhibitions, productions;
  10. Earned USG teaching and learning badges and certifications.
Professional Service to the Institution or Community
1. Institutional Service
  1. Receipt of grants, contracts, or awards related to institutional service activities;
  2. Receipt of copyrights, patents, or inventions related to institutional service activities;
  3. Participated in college governance or committee work;
  4. Authored institutional policies or procedures;
  5. Created and/or implemented new academic programs or projects;
  6. Created and/or implemented internal or external workshops;
  7. Created and/or implemented industry-based training programs;
  8. Developed and organized professional conferences;
  9. Provided consultation or technical assistance to peers and colleagues;
  10. Provided editorial work and/or peer reviews of academic manuscripts;
  11. Reviewed and/or edited grant proposals;
  12. Received public recognition for coaching techniques, skill of players, and team wins;
  13. Delivered timely and helpful presentations to the institution’s faculty;
  14. Served as a program coordinator, learning support coordinator, or initiative coordinator;
  15. Served on institutional panels including judicial, financial aid, scholarships, academic appeals, Title IX, etc;
  16. Served on review committees including tenure, promotion, and post-tenure;
  17. Served on Faculty Senate committees and subcommittees;
2. Community Service
  1. Receipt of awards, honors, or other special recognitions for community service activities;
  2. Receipt of copyrights, patents, or inventions related to community service activities;
  3. Held membership and/or leadership positions in local civic organizations (e.g., Rotary Club, Kiwanis, Humane Society, Boys and Girls Clubs, Boy Scouts of America);
  4. Provided service hours and/or expertise to local civic organizations;
  5. Provided specific needs-based training for conducting community service activities (e.g., first aid training, foster parent IMPACT classes, therapy animal certification);
  6. Provided consultation or technical assistance to community leaders;
  7. Published articles in professional and community service-based journals (e.g., Scout Life, Eagle’s Call, The Military Officer, Youth in Action 4-H Magazine);
  8. Created and/or implemented community workshops or conferences;
  9. Reviewed and/or edited grant proposals for community projects;
  10. Coordinated and/or implemented community observances (e.g., Memorial Day, Veterans Day, Independence Day).
  11. Participated in EGSC-sponsored community events (e.g., Science Olympiad, Community Days, Pine Tree Festivals, tree planting ceremonies, and charity runs);
  12. Participated in local community events (e.g., clean-ups, food and clothing drives, library sales);
  13. Served as a volunteer at local K-12 schools (e.g., Parent Teacher Association volunteer, booster club member, event coordinator);
  14. Served as a volunteer in K-12 student competitions (e.g., American Legion Oratorical Competition, National High School Ethics Bowl, 3M Young Scientist Challenge, U.S. Academic Decathlon).
Continuous Professional Growth
1. 1. Earned terminal degree or additional graduate degree(s);
  2. Earned specialized certifications;
  3. Attended institutional meetings, conferences, seminars, or workshops;
  4. Attended professional meetings, conferences, seminars, or workshops in one’s area of expertise;
  5. Participated in the leadership or membership activities of professional organizations or societies related to one's area of expertise;
  6. Participated in Quality Enhancement Program (QEP) training, development, promotion, and delivery;
  7. Participated in performances, recordings, or production of literary, musical, visual arts, or theatrical works from traditional or contemporary repertoires of the performing arts, or other artistic works;
  8. Learned innovative methods for using interactive technology in the classroom (e.g., game-based learning platforms, student response systems, virtual field trips, quick response codes).
  9. Learned a foreign language;
  10. Created an annotated bibliography of the research or subject area material read by the instructor.

Policies and Regulations Governing Academic Tenure and Promotion

Section I. Academic Tenure

A. In General

Academic tenure resides at the institutional level and refers to the conditions that protect the faculty member until retirement, dismissal for cause, or release because of financial exigency or program modification as determined by the Board of Regents. Tenure ensures quality teaching, as the institution retains faculty members of the highest quality for which it strives. Therefore, tenure at East Georgia State College should be regarded as a valued aspect of higher education, as it signifies a long-term reciprocal relationship between the institution and its faculty members.

Academic tenure is not guaranteed based on doctorate or longevity at the institution and may be withheld on documented grounds that do not violate the institution’s academic freedom policy. Each faculty member should present a clear plan for professional growth and development and will be evaluated on their demonstrated professional competence in five areas: teaching, student success, academic achievement, professional development, and service.

B. Profile of Faculty Ranks

Only those in professorial ranks (Assistant Professors, Associate Professors, and Full Professors) are eligible for the award of tenure. Part-time faculty members and faculty members with adjunct or temporary appointments will not acquire tenure (BOR 8.3.7.2). Tenure may be awarded upon completion of a probationary period of at least five (5) continuous years of full-time service at the rank of Assistant Professor or higher and upon the President’s approval. Candidates may apply for tenure during their fifth year of full- time, tenure-track service in a professorial rank. Thus, to be considered for tenure, applicants must be hired or promoted to a tenure-track Assistant Professor position (or higher) and must satisfy the criteria for advancement to the next level.

The full-time professorial ranks and appointments are as follows:

1. Professor. A Full Professor is someone who demonstrates superior achievement appropriate for the institution in teaching, student success, academic achievement, professional development, and service. Candidates are eligible to apply for promotion to Professor in their fifth year of full time service as an Associate Professor.

Promotion to Professor requires rigorous dedication to the profession as well as at least a master’s degree in the candidate’s teaching discipline. Neither the degree attained, nor longevity of service, guarantees a promotion.

2. Associate Professor. An Associate Professor is someone who demonstrates excellence in teaching, student success, academic achievement, professional development, and service. Candidates are eligible to apply for promotion to Associate Professor in their fifth year of full-time service as an Assistant Professor.

Promotion to Associate Professor requires a master’s degree in the candidate’s teaching discipline. Neither level of education nor longevity of service guarantees a promotion.

3. Assistant Professor. An Assistant Professor is someone who demonstrates having a strong potential for future contribution to the institution and its mission as well as excellence in teaching, student success, academic achievement, professional development, and service. Either promotion or initial appointment to the rank of Assistant Professor places the faculty member on a tenure-track (unless otherwise stated in a contract for temporary positions) from the effective date of the promotion or appointment. Candidates are eligible to apply for promotion to Assistant Professor in their fifth year as a full-time instructor. Temporary contract years of service do not count toward tenure-track service.

Promotion to Assistant Professor requires at least a master’s degree in the candidate’s teaching discipline. Neither a doctorate nor longevity of service guarantees a promotion.

4. Instructor. This rank is appropriate for one appointed to full-time faculty who has a proven potential for advancement to the professorial ranks within the institution. Instructors are not eligible for the award of tenure.

The Board of Regents Policy states that a maximum of three (3) years’ credit toward the minimum probationary period may be allowed for service in tenure-track positions at other institutions or for full-time service at the rank of Instructor or Lecturer at the same institution. If granted, such credit for prior service shall be approved in writing by the president at the time of the initial appointment at the rank of Assistant Professor or higher (Georgia Board of Regents Tenure and Promotion Policy 8.3.7.4).

Any rank at East Georgia State College requires, at minimum, a master’s degree in the teaching discipline and/or experience and other aspects of skills that can lead to an alternative justification, or, in rare cases, the equivalent of two (2) years of full-time graduate or first professional study beyond the bachelor’s degree, in accordance with BOR (Georgia Board of Regents Tenure and Promotion Policy 8.3.6.4). Longevity of service is not a guarantee of promotion, according to the BOR (8.3.6.4).

C. Areas of Evaluation

The annual faculty evaluations by the supervisor are one of the review criteria for tenure and promotion. However, the award of tenure or promotion is not based solely on annual evaluations and is not fully governed by specific annual ratings or student evaluations. Rather, the awarding of tenure should indicate that a faculty member has demonstrated a long-term commitment to the institution with the demonstrable evidence of significant accomplishments in teaching, student success, service to the institution, professional development, and academic achievement. Above all, a faculty member must demonstrate excellence in the classroom and effective teaching. Thus, Promotion and Tenure Dossiers must provide evidence of noteworthy achievement in teaching and at least two other of the four remaining criteria; activity in all five areas is preferred. (Board of Regents Tenure and Promotion Policy 8.3.6.1 and 8.3.7.3 Criteria for Tenure). Since EGSC is classified as an associate dominant-select bachelor’s degree institution, the emphasis at EGSC is on teaching, student success, professional growth, and service, with less emphasis on research (See Board of Regents Policy 2.8 Institutional Mission – State Colleges).

I. Teaching. Teaching refers to the duties associated with traditional lecturing, management of class discussions, facilitating online learning, supervising classroom activities or online activities, supervising and training in a laboratory or clinical setting. Teaching lends knowledge to students and encourages them to make their own connections to what they already know. Basic faculty teaching responsibility involves being prepared for classes and meeting classes as scheduled.

The following criteria will be used to determine teaching effectiveness: relevancy within the discipline, innovative pedagogy and how it affected students, quality of course preparation and assignments, adherence to professional standards in class management, and effective evaluation methods. Faculty are encouraged consider variety of instructional styles, methods, and creative approaches.

East Georgia State College expects all its faculty members to prioritize teaching, emphasizing best practices for engaging students. Thus, the tenure or promotion candidate must present heavy evidence of effective teaching in support of a bid for promotion or tenure. Evidence in the dossier may include, but is not limited to, peer and supervisor observations of teaching, teaching narrative, selected student evaluations and assessment of evaluation reports, rubrics, class activities and assignments, assessment feedback, assessment of learning outcomes, and success of students. Assessment of faculty will include the use of an institutional rubric established for the area of teaching. The rubric will be available as a guide to faculty.

II. Student Success Activities. Student Success will involve an assessment of the faculty member’s involvement in activities inside and outside the classroom that deepen student learning and engagement for all learners. These aspects may include effective advising and mentoring; undergraduate and graduate research; other forms of experiential learning; engagement in other high impact practices; the development of student success tools and curricular materials; strategies to improve student career success; involvement in faculty development activities; and other activities identified by the institution to deepen student learning. Examples include, but are not limited to, Centers for Teaching and Learning, Chancellor’s Learning Scholars, Faculty Learning Communities and MomentumU@USG. Assessment of faculty will include the use of an institutional rubric established for the area of student success. The rubric will be available as a guide to faculty.

III. Research/Scholarship/Creative Activity or Academic Achievement. This includes but is not limited to publishing; peer--reviewed publishing; public scholarship; presenting papers at regional, state, national, or international conferences: attending professional meetings or conferences; attending/leading/ planning institutional training, workshops, and conferences; studying and applying professional literature in one’s field of expertise; participating in professional organizations; and engaging in academic coursework toward completing academic degrees. Assessment of faculty will include the use of an institutional rubric established for the area of academic achievement. The rubric will be available as a guide to faculty.

IV. Professional Service to the Institution or Community. When faculty members give a portion of their time and talents to their communities, the profession, and their institution, they make their living and workspaces run more efficiently as well as develop skills crucial to successful classroom management and institutional effectiveness. Therefore, faculty members are expected to serve when and where they can and how they can. East Georgia State College highly values faculty service given to the institution, as that service helps enrich the educational experience of students. Effective service encompasses activities that a faculty member does that go beyond the classroom responsibilities. These include, but are not limited to, the policy reviews and drafting, effective student advising, service on standing and special committees, advising/participation in extracurricular organizations, discipline-related community service, and articles written for local and institutional publications. Service to the community through civic or charitable organizations or service to the profession through academic organizations unaffiliated with the institution is also valued. Assessment of faculty will include the use of an institutional rubric established for the area of service. The rubric will be available as a guide to faculty.

V. Continuous Professional Growth. East Georgia State College recognizes the correlation between teaching and research or other aspects of professional development. Thus, all faculty members are expected to demonstrate continued intellectual growth and to participate in activities that enhance their performance as academic professionals and teachers. Assessment of faculty will include the use of an institutional rubric established for the area of professional development. The rubric will be available as a guide to faculty.

Section II. The Procedure for Tenure and Promotion

To administer the policies of the Board of Regents and comply with the Statutes of East Georgia State College, the procedure described herein is to be followed in evaluating and recommending faculty members for promotion and tenure. The purpose of this procedure is to provide an orderly and constructive process for counseling faculty members as they advance toward promotion and tenure and to provide a mechanism by which all faculty will be evaluated fairly. These procedures apply to full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty.

The policy at East Georgia State College is intended to supplement the policies of the Board of Regents as stated in the sections Criteria for Promotion (8.3.6) and Tenure and Criteria for Tenure8.3.7) of the Policy Manual of the Board of Regents, section 4.5 of the Academic and Student Affairs Handbook of the Board of Regents, and Article VII, Section B of the Statutes of East Georgia State College. Successful bids for promotion and/or tenure will be linked to merit pay increases, budget permitting.

A. Preparation

Upon the initial entry into a tenure-track position, faculty members should begin documenting their teaching effectiveness, academic achievement, professional development, and service as evidence to support their bid for tenure and promotion. A faculty mentor to help them navigate the best paths to fulfilling the institution’s expectations and mission will be assigned by the Campus Coordinator. The faculty member should initiate conversations with their Campus Coordinator or department chair about their progress toward tenure or promotion. The Campus Coordinator will counsel the faculty member about his/her responsibility to the institution and about institutional expectations. Tenure-track faculty should prepare to submit a Pre-Tenure Review Dossier within their third year of service toward tenure. Faculty should expect substantial feedback from their supervisors and the Tenure and Promotion Committee so that they may make a successful bid for tenure or promotion when they are eligible to apply.

1. Academic Leadership Assistance. Within the first month of the tenure track, tenure candidates will meet with the Campus Coordinator to receive information on where online the tenure process is described, to learn what specific supporting evidence to collect, and to see an example of a tenure dossier. The Campus Coordinator will also establish and discuss with the new tenure-track faculty an outline of the tenure plan, conveying the department, institutions and BOR requirements for promotion and tenure. The Campus Coordinator may use this opportunity to inform the tenure candidate of professional development opportunities the institution offers, suggest specific ways to serve the college and enhance teaching skills, as well as encourage engagement in the discipline.

2. Mentorship. The Campus Coordinator will assign the new tenure candidate a mentor during the first month of the candidate starting the tenure track; this mentor will meet with the new faculty several times within the first year to help the new candidate transition into the institution and/or tenure-track responsibilities. Reminding the new candidate of Human Resource training, teaching workshops, department deadlines, advising methods and forms, and peer-evaluation of teaching are appropriate activities that should be assumed. The mentor may also offer advice for the tenure dossier, teaching, academic scholarship, professional development, and service.

3. Pre-Tenure Review Dossier. According to the Georgia Board of Regents, “Each institution shall conduct in-depth, pre-tenure reviews of all faculty on the tenure track in their third year of progress toward tenure. The criteria established for promotion and tenure, emphasizing excellence in teaching, shall be used as the focus for these reviews” (Georgia Board of Regents Tenure and Criteria for Tenure 8.3.5.1). Therefore, the faculty member’s Pre-Tenure Review shall be performed in his/her third year of service at the level of assistant professor or higher. By April 1, each untenured faculty member approaching their third academic year must submit a Pre-Tenure Dossier to the Campus Coordinator; the Campus Coordinator will facilitate the election of a chair of the pre-tenure committee, and then forward the dossier to the committee. The Pre-Tenure Dossier is for review and critique, not a formal application for tenure. By May 15, the review committee will provide, to both the faculty member and the Campus Coordinator, a written critique of the dossier. By August 15, the Campus Coordinator shall have met with the candidate to thoroughly discuss the committee’s feedback and counsel the faculty member toward tenure.

A successful pre-tenure review is not a guarantee for tenure. The constructive comments about the pre-tenure dossier must be addressed in the tenure dossier.

B. Administration Procedure

This process begins when a faculty person joins the tenure track and is ongoing, especially during the years leading up to a decision on the award of tenure and promotion. The normal chain of progression for a promotion or tenure application is from the school’s Review Committee for Promotion/Tenure to the Campus Coordinator, then to the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs (VPASA), and finally to the President. Specific responsibilities of the Review Committee, the Campus Coordinator, and the VPASA will be delineated below. Once an application for tenure or promotion is initiated, the faculty member may request at any time that the application be withdrawn; otherwise, the dossier will proceed through the entire administrative procedure. By August 1, the VPASA will inform faculty members who are eligible to apply for tenure or promotion. At the same time, the faculty member’s Campus Coordinator shall be informed of the upcoming candidates. The Campus Coordinator will convene the Review Committee by August 15. The Review Committee shall elect a chair. The chair shall identify himself/herself to the tenure candidate and to the VPASA who will then instruct the committee on the review process.

1. Review Committees. Review Committees for Promotion/Tenure shall be composed of five qualified faculty (appropriate rank according based on promotion request) to faculty from the applicant’s academic area (Humanities, Math/Science, Social Science), excluding the Campus Coordinator, the Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs, and the faculty member(s) being reviewed). The Campus Coordinator shall select the committee; the committee will elect its chair. In the case of tenure applications and pre-tenure dossiers, the Review Committee for Tenure will be composed of five tenured faculty from the applicant’s academic area; in the case of applications for promotion, the Review Committee for Promotion will be composed of five faculty from the applicant’s academic area ranked at or above the rank applied for. Each review committee must have a minimum of five members. If the applicant’s academic area has fewer than five qualified faculty members for a review committee, the qualified faculty shall select appropriate faculty members (faculty from other academic areas who meet tenure and rank qualifications) to complete a committee of five.

2. Promotion/Tenure Application. When the faculty member is eligible for promotion/tenure, according to the appropriate timeline(s), he/she may submit a dossier to his/her school’s Review Committee. Promotion/Tenure dossiers should be submitted by September 15th.

The Review Committee will review the dossier, provide feedback based on the Evaluation Likert Scale, and make a recommendation by October 15th. The Review Committee’s chair will submit the dossier and its recommendation to the Campus Coordinator and shall notify the VPASA of submission. At the same time, the committee will, in writing, notify the faculty member and the appropriate Campus Coordinator as to its recommendation on the application, including a rationale for that decision. Applications must receive a simple majority to pass. The Campus Coordinator will review the dossier, add to the dossier his/her recommendation regarding the application and include his/her assessment of the applicant’s qualifications for promotion/tenure and submit the dossier and recommendation to the VPASA before November 1st. At the same time, the Campus Coordinator will, in writing, notify the faculty member and the Review Committee of his/her recommendation and rationale.

When the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs receives a tenure/promotion dossier from the Campus Coordinator, he/she will review the application, add his/her recommendation to the dossier, and forward the dossier to the President upon the return to an official schedule of operation of the college. At the same time, the VPASA will, in writing, notify the faculty member and the Campus Coordinator as to his/her action and recommendation on the application, including a rationale for that decision. The President shall render the final decision on the application by the end of January of the same academic year and return the application dossier to the faculty applicant.

3. The Award of Tenure. In compliance with the Georgia Board of Regents, upon approval of the President and the candidate’s completion of a probationary period of at least five (5) years of full time service at the rank of Assistant Professor or higher, tenure may be awarded (Georgia Board of Regents Policy Manual Tenure and Criteria for Tenure 8.3.7.4). The five-year period must be continuous, except that a maximum of two (2) years interruption because of a leave of absence or part-time service may be permitted-provided, however, that an award of credit for the probationary period of interruption shall be at the discretion of the president (Georgia Board of Regents Policy Manual Tenure and Criteria for Tenure 8.3.7.4).

4. Notification of Tenure. Upon approval of the award of tenure to an individual by the President, the individual shall be notified in writing by the president of his/her institution, with a copy of the notification forwarded to the USG Chief Academic Officer and Chief Academic Officer (Georgia Board of Regents Policy Manual Tenure and Criteria for Tenure 8.3.7.5).

5. Stopping the Tenure Clock. Faculty may petition for a leave of absence and stop the tenure clock for up to two (2) years, consecutive or nonconsecutive. Qualifying requests for leave include the birth or adoption of a child or serious disability or prolonged illness of the employee or employee’s immediate family member (Georgia Board of Regents Policy Manual Tenure and Criteria for Tenure 8.3.7.4). According to the Georgia Board of Regents Policy Manual, the President must approve the leave, and the five-year probationary period may be suspended during the leave of absence (Georgia Board of Regents Policy Manual Tenure and Criteria for Tenure 8.3.7.4).

6. Tenure Credit for Service. A maximum of three (3) years of credit toward the minimum probationary period may be allowed for service in tenure-track positions at other institutions or for full-time service at the rank of instructor or lecturer at the same institution if the instructor or lecturer applies for and is hired into a tenure-track position. Such credit for prior service shall be approved in writing by the President at the time of the initial appointment at the rank of assistant professor or higher (Georgia Board of Regents Policy Manual Tenure and Criteria for Tenure 8.3.7.4). This letter must be included in the dossier.

7. Unsuccessful Bids for Tenure and Promotion. Neither level of education nor time in rank guarantees promotion or tenure. However, the candidate may appeal any recommendations from the Review Committee, Campus Coordinator, or VPASA.

• Appeal of the Review Committee’s decision. Upon receiving the recommendation from the Review Committee, the candidate has five (5) working days to submit a written response to the Campus Coordinator. The response will be added to the dossier.

• Appeal of the Campus Coordinator’s decision. Upon receiving the recommendation from the Campus Coordinator, the Candidate has five (5) working days to submit a written response to VPASA. The response will be added to the dossier.

• Appeal of the VPASA’s decision. Upon receiving the recommendation from the VPASA, the Candidate has five (5) working days to submit a written response. The response will be added to the dossier for review and consideration by the President.

If the tenure application and appeal are not successful, the faculty member may reapply during the fall term of the subsequent year(s) until his/her maximum allowable service years have been reached.

8. Maximum Time Served without Tenure. In accordance with the Georgia Board of Regents Policy (8.3.7.6), “Except for the approved suspension of the probationary period due to a leave of absence, the maximum time that may be served at the rank of assistant professor or above without the award of tenure shall be seven years, but a terminal contract for an eighth year may be proffered if a recommendation for tenure is not approved by the President.

“The maximum time that may be served in combination of full-time instructional appointments (instructor or professorial ranks) without the award of tenure shall be 10 years, but a terminal contract for the eleventh year may be proffered if a recommendation for tenure is not approved by the President.

“Except for the approved suspension of the probationary period due to a leave of absence, the maximum period of time that may be served at the rank of full-time instructor shall be seven years.”

9. Early Tenure. If the person is being appointed to an administrative position and has not previously held tenure, the award of tenure must be approved by the Chancellor (Georgia Board of Regents Tenure and Criteria for Tenure 8.3.7.4). Otherwise, applications for early tenure and/or promotion must make the case for exceptionality. Both the Campus Coordinator’s

recommendation and the Committee’s recommendation must address the early nature of the application.

10. Loss of Tenure or Tenure Credit. According to the Georgia Board of Regent’s policy on Tenure and Promotion, tenure or tenure credit at East Georgia State College may be lost under the following conditions:

• The faculty member resigns from an institution;

• The faculty resigns in writing from a tenured position to take a non-tenured position;

• The faculty resigns in writing from a position for which probationary credit toward tenure is given to take a position for which no probationary credit is given.

In the event such an individual is again employed as a candidate for tenure, probationary credit for the prior service may be awarded in the same manner as for service at another institution (BoR Policy Manual Tenure and Criteria for Tenure 8.3.7.7).

Section III. Dossier Submission Guidelines

Tenure and Promotion applications must include materials that directly address the criteria for the requested action and must relate to the relevant time served at East Georgia State College since the last tenure and/or promotion action. All materials should be arranged in reverse chronological order.

A. Primary Dossier:

The dossier will be submitted online to an internal server. Documents should be formatted in a 12-pt. font, Times New Roman or Arial when possible.

The faculty member uploads the documents for consideration into an electronic file- sharing site. The dossier, including the appendices, should not exceed 25 pages. The chair of the committee will instruct the candidate on where and how to submit the electronic dossier. No changes or additions to the electronic dossier will be allowed after October 1.

At each step of the Review process, the supporting documents, such as letters from the Committee or a Campus Coordinator, are uploaded to the file-sharing site.

B. The Dossier’s Purpose and Organization

Because the dossier supports a candidate’s application for promotion and tenure, it should focus on showing the strengths of the candidate. The dossier must include strong evidence of the candidate’s qualifications for academic advancement. The dossier must contain the following items:

1. Organization

There must be a table of contents outlining the following organizational plan:

a. A cover letter (abstract);
b. Only three letters of support and recommendation from peers;
c. A current curriculum vitae;
d. Narrative on teaching (Teaching Statement) and appendix;
e. Narrative on student success and appendix;
f. Narrative on academic achievement and appendix;
g. Narrative on professional development and appendix;
h. Narrative on service (service may be a single narrative or divided into institutional [h1] and community [h2] service narratives) and appendix.

2. Dossier Guidelines

The dossier should not be developed to show every single activity of a candidate but rather a selection of strongest activities since the last tenure and/or promotion action. All dossiers should be limited to 25 pages.

a. Letters of support and recommendation. Three letters of support or recommendations must be typed and original. These three letters must be from academic peers or supervisors.

b. The Cover Letter should act as a one-page abstract of the dossier.

c. The Curriculum Vitae (C.V.) The vitae should be current and organized by the following headings and follow current professional standards for one’s field:

• Education: List degrees earned, the awarding institutions, and the dates completed.
• Professional Teaching Experience: List job titles and teaching experience, including employers, date of employment, and subjects taught.
• Student Success Activities: List significant activities/conferences/teaching modules, etc., attended that illustrate a commitment to student success.
• Research/Scholarship/Creative Activity or Academic Achievement: List publications, creative activities, academic accolades, and conference presentations.
• Professional Service: List service to the college and community (may be presented as two sections: Institutional and Community Service).
• Professional Growth: List professional growth and development activities, and conferences attended.

d. Narratives must be provided for each of the following areas:

• Teaching
• Student Success Activities
• Research/Scholarship/Creative Activity or Academic Achievement
• Professional Service
• Professional Growth

Narratives are reflective of beliefs, practices, experiences, and professional development. They highlight honors or special recognition as well as contributions to student learning, the institution, and the research field. Narratives offer specific examples that portray the candidate’s achievements, innovations, and professional growth. They must be no more than two pages (12 pt. font, Times New Roman or Arial) and must address the period relevant to the application; they must be followed by supporting appendices.

e. An addendum must be appended to the dossier to include items which are not included among the required elements but necessary for an accurate evaluation of the dossier. Appendices act as a body of evidence for each of the five areas of evaluation and must be organized accordingly. For example, assessment of student evaluations must be in the teaching section, following the teaching narratives. Abstracts of articles or presentations must be in the professional development section, following the research narrative. Proof of service would be in the service section, following the service statement. Evidence of participation in HIPS or other student success activities would follow the narrative on student success.

3. Standard and Documentation of Contributions

I. Teaching

Effectiveness in teaching is reflected by student learning and improvements in the learning environment and curriculum. Please review the rubric on teaching to consider how effectiveness in teaching may be assessed. Excellence in teaching is going above and beyond the standard. Evidence of teaching excellence must include four years of student evaluations, a detailed assessment of success rate data, and a reflection on improvement techniques. The section may also include, but is not limited to, any combination of the sources listed below:

• A summary of student evaluations and accomplishments that demonstrate teacher’s effectiveness,
• Examples of substantial, innovative, or creative assignments and activities;
• Instructions or examples of student learning assessments (tests, essay prompts, projects) and their grading rubric;
• A syllabus and course schedule for each course taught;
• Examples of feedback given to students;
• Selected student comments or letters from students that testify to teacher’s abilities to inspire student interest and to stimulate their work;
• Evaluation by students trained in clinical, laboratory, or field activities,
• Student accomplishments related to the course;
• Development or significant revision of programs and courses;
• Preparation of innovative teaching materials, instructional techniques, curricula, or programs of study for the institution or professional organization,
• A peer of equal rank or greater, Chair, or Campus Coordinator evaluation of teaching;
• Peer evaluations by colleagues/supervisors who have team-taught with the candidate, used instructional materials designed by the candidate, or have taught the candidate’s students in subsequent courses;
• Proof or Evaluation Summary of successful integration of teaching and research or teaching and service in ways that benefit students;
• Conference or workshop attendance focused on teaching;
• An annotated bibliography of books read related to teaching with a summary assessment of how the materials impacted teaching.

II. Student Success

Faculty demonstrate their concern for student achievement through a commitment to best educational practices. These can include participation in extracurricular activities, such as sponsoring an academic club, or through support for the ACE by offering tutoring hours. Remaining current in educational theories will show an interest in improving practices in the classroom or in online teaching. Engagement in opportunities offered through the state, such as the Governor’s Chancellor Learning Scholars program, or USG Momentum training modules also illustrates a deep interest by faculty in improving student success rates through implementation of new pedagogical methods. Please review the rubric on student success to consider how effectiveness in this area may be assessed. Evidence of a commitment to student success includes but is not limited to:

• Regular student advising or mentoring
• Tutoring in the ACE
• Sponsoring a student club
• Assisting with an academic event such as a science fair, art exhibition, theatre performance, or student presentations of original research
• Encouraging and monitoring student participation in The Hoopee Bird student newsletter or in the Wiregrass literary and art journal
• Teaching a Student Learning Community course
• Evidence of student engagement in courses
• Participation in a Faculty Learning Community
• Participation as a Chancellor’s Learning Scholar
• Participation in the Governor’s Teaching Fellows Program.
• Involvement in MomentumU@USG training programs
• Application of methodologies such as TiLTing in course design

III. Research/Scholarship/Creative Activity or Academic Achievement

Research/Scholarship/Creative Activity or Academic Achievement encompasses a broad range of scholarly activities. This area includes discipline-based research as well as research and scholarship related to teaching that contributes to the development and refinement of knowledge. Interdisciplinary and collaborative works are encouraged but will be judged as such if each candidate gives clear evidence of his/her participation. The principal standard should always be quality rather than quantity. Please review the rubric to consider how this area may be assessed. Evidence of academic achievement includes, but is not limited to, the sources listed below.

• Authorship of research publications (e.g., articles, manuals, agricultural extension documents);
• Presentation, conference, or publication activities related to teaching such as methodology, approaches, textbooks, lecture notes, assessment techniques, that reflect a candidate’s teaching expertise and contributions to helping others develop their teaching;
• Presented scholarly papers or posters at academic or research conferences;
• Grants related to instruction or to fund innovative teaching activities or stipends for students;
• Abstracts for publications of research, books, articles, journalism, art, literature;
• Scholarly reviews of publications, exhibitions, productions.
• Proof of poster exhibition of research at conference or seminar;
• Detailed description of exhibition, installation, production, design, recording, reading of literary work (include time and place);
• Proof of being an invited speaker, author, or contributor to edited collections.
• Proof of honors, awards, or recognition for scholarship.
• Funded projects, grants, commissions, contracts;
• Proof of attending or leading institutional or external training seminars, workshops, meetings related to enhancing skills needed to better perform duties associated with teaching, advising, scholarship, or service.

IV. Professional Service to the Institution or Community

East Georgia State College recognizes two areas of professional service: institutional and community. Institutional services are activities that directly benefit the mission of East Georgia State College, the profession, or community. Beneficiaries of such activities include current and former faculty, staff, and students, as well as donors and patrons supporting college goals. These activities include, but are not limited to, active participation in college governance, participation in community activities hosted by EGSC, contributions to administrative support (committee work); developing, implementing, or managing academic programs or projects; fundraising, grant writing, and student advisement. Included are those activities that allow faculty to apply their academic expertise to directly benefit external audiences in support of the college mission. Examples of these include, but are not limited to, applied research, development, and organization of professional conferences, academic editorship, peer review of professional manuscripts, peer review of grant applications, industry consultation services, and service-based instruction. Community service activities are those that directly benefit the external community of East Georgia State College but may not be related to a faculty member’s academic discipline. Such activities are valued as they foster goodwill and strengthen the connection between the college and the community it serves. These activities are highly varied but must identify a human need or societal concern and seek to improve public welfare or education. Please review the rubric on teaching to consider how effectiveness in teaching may be assessed. Evidence of the effectiveness of service includes, but is not limited to, the sources listed below.

• Honors, awards, or other special recognition for community service activities;
• Documentation of service hours or expertise provided to community service organizations (e.g., Rotary Club, Kiwanis, Boy Scouts of America);
• Documentation of specific needs-based training for conducting community service activities (e.g., first aid training, foster parent IMPACT classes, therapy animal certification);
• Documentation of role in college governance or committee work;
• Proof of authorship of institutional policies or procedures;
• Contracts, grants, or gifts related to service activities;
• Copyrights, patents, or inventions related to service activities;
• Proof of applied research publications (e.g., articles, manuals, agricultural extension documents);
• Documentation of role in the creation/implementation of external or internal workshops;
• Documentation of role in the creation/implementation of industry-based trainings;
• Documentation of role in the development and organization of professional conferences;
• Documentation of role in editorial work and peer review of academic manuscripts;
• Documentation of role in review of grant proposals;
• Documentation of role in the creation and implementation of new academic programs or projects;
• Public recognition for coaching techniques, the skill of players, wins;
• Proof of consultation or technical assistance.

V. Continuous Professional Growth

Professional Growth and Development allows faculty members to be actively engaged in their profession and offers them the intellectual skills necessary to be up to date in their respective academic areas. Please review the rubric on teaching to consider how effectiveness in teaching may be assessed. This area includes attending

conferences/workshops and subject materials read. Research and scholarship relate to teaching in that it contributes to the development and refinement of knowledge. Public scholarship and leadership activity in professional organizations and societies related to one’s field or teaching. Evidence of the effectiveness of Professional Growth Development includes, but is not limited to, the sources listed below.

• Proof of attendance at professional meetings or conferences in one’s research area;
• Proof of attending/leading/planning institutional training, workshops;
• Annotated Bibliography of research or subject area materials read;
• Record of participation in workshops or seminars (description of workshops’/ seminars’ purpose and the activities engaged in as well as what was learned is encouraged);
• Summary and proof of performance, recording, or production of literary, musical, visual arts, or theatrical works from traditional or contemporary repertoires of the performing arts, or other artistic works;
• Citation index analysis of one’s work;
• Patents, new art forms;
• Public scholarship (blogs, interviews, editorials, etc...);
• Description of membership or leadership activity in professional organizations or societies related to one’s field or teaching.

Note: Faculty can track and review years of service and career progression through accessing their data and using the tools that One USG Connect provides (https://oneusgconnect.usg.edu).

Policies and Regulations Governing Post-Tenure Review

Institutional policies align with the Board of Regents (BOR) Policy Manual: 8.3 Additional Policies for Faculty and the University System of Georgia (USG) Academic Affairs Handbook: Section 4.0: Academic Personnel .

Policy Overview

East Georgia State College has adopted the following policy for Post-Tenure Review in accordance with section 4.7 of the Board of Regents Academic and Student Affairs Handbook and section 8.3.5.4 of the Board of Regents Policy Manual. This policy was developed in consultation with faculty and has been approved by the APCC Committee and Faculty Senate and supports Academic Freedom. In keeping with the mission of East Georgia State College, each faculty member will be evaluated according to the following criteria, as defined in the Policies and Regulations Governing Academic Tenure and Promotion.

1. 1. 1. teaching;
    2. student success activities;
    3. research/scholarship/creative activity or academic achievement;
    4. professional service to the institution or community; and continuous professional growth.

Post-tenure dossiers must demonstrate noteworthy achievement in teaching and at least one other of the five criteria; meeting or exceeding expectations in two other criteria is required; activity in a fifth criteria is preferred. Faculty whose primary responsibility is not teaching must demonstrate excellence in their primary area of responsibility.

Timeline

According to policies of the Board of Regents, faculty will undergo review every five years after being granted tenure. The Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs will inform faculty members that they are beginning their year of review by the start of the fall semester. When a faculty member submits a promotion dossier (Associate/Full Professor), the promotion dossier takes the place of the post-tenure review, so that the post-tenure timeline is restarted; likewise, the post-tenure timeline will be restarted for tenured faculty granted an academic leadership promotion (e.g. Campus Coordinator, Associate Vice President, Vice President). Tenured faculty will not be required to submit two dossiers within five years, except for those who fail to pass post-tenure review or are forced into corrective post-tenure review. Faculty members who refuse to submit a post-tenure review dossier must submit a signed letter of intent to retire or resign within two years. If the faculty member retracts the letter of intent to retire or resign, the post-tenure timeline will be re-established as without interruption.

Early Post-Tenure Review

A tenured faculty member may voluntarily elect to go up for a post-tenure review before the five-year time limit. This enables a faculty member to take full advantage of the feedback and insight provided by their colleagues at a strategic moment in their career, rather than having to wait for the usual 5-year cycle. Early post-tenure reviews should include a review of the faculty member’s accomplishments since they were last evaluated for tenure or a previous post-tenure review, whichever was most recent. If the faculty member has a successful review, the next post-tenure review will be five years from the voluntary post-tenure review date. If the faculty member is unsuccessful, the 5-year post-tenure review date remains in place.

Interruptions to the Post-Tenure Review Timeline

Faculty may request a pause of the post-tenure timeline in situations, such as extended illness, that prevent full engagement in the areas of evaluation. Requests to pause the post-tenure timeline must be made to the Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs at the time such situation arises.

Post-Tenure Review Committee

Post-tenure dossiers will be reviewed by the Post Tenure Review Committee. During the fall workshop, the faculty of each academic area (Humanities, Math/Science, Social Science) will elect a committee of tenured faculty to serve on a post-tenure review committee (excluding the Campus Coordinators, the Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs, and the faculty member(s) being reviewed). The review committee will elect its chair and must have five members. If the applicant’s academic area has fewer than five qualified faculty members for a review committee, the qualified faculty shall select appropriate faculty members (faculty from other academic areas who meet tenure and rank qualifications) to complete a committee of five. Faculty may be excused from serving on a post-tenure review committee at the discretion of the Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs for reasons including but not limited to a heavy teaching load, service on one or more simultaneous review committees, or a conflict of interest.

Administration/Dossier

Post–tenure dossiers are due by March 1 of the review year; the faculty member under review will submit their dossier to their immediate supervisor who will review the dossier, add a letter of evaluation, and submit the dossier to the chair of the review committee. Dossiers should be composed of the elements arranged and numbered as below:

1. 1. 1. A letter of evaluation from the immediate supervisor.
    2. A current curriculum vitae covering the previous five years since the last tenure, promotion, or post-tenure review.
    3. Annual reports since the last award of tenure or post-tenure review.
    4. Annual supervisory evaluations since the last award of tenure or post-tenure review.
    5. A professional self-appraisal statement that reflects on accomplishments and contributions during the period under review—especially those that may not be included in or addressed by annual reports and supervisory evaluations—and projects a two-year growth and development plan. The statement should address each of the five criteria for post-tenure review, especially any shift of emphasis with regard to the criteria.
    6. Student evaluations since the last award of tenure or post-tenure review.
    7. Any additional information that is relevant to the post-tenure review. (optional)

Faculty members who have received at least four satisfactory supervisory evaluations over the five-year review period are allowed to submit an abbreviated dossier instead of the standard dossier described above. The abbreviated dossier will consist of a letter from their supervisor attesting to their professional performance over the past five years, annual supervisory evaluations since the last award of tenure or post-tenure review, a current curriculum vitae, and a professional self-appraisal statement.

If, after examining the dossier, the review committee feels there are significant omissions, the faculty member will be informed and given the opportunity to fill in the missing data and documentation per a timeline established by the committee.

Evaluation

Since East Georgia State College is an access institution that grants primarily associates degrees, faculty must direct a large portion of their professional time and energies to instruction and other student success activities. Therefore, in keeping with the college mission, service, professional development, and academic achievement should be broadly defined. Refer to the Annual Evaluation of Faculty Policy and Policies and Regulations Governing Academic Tenure and Promotion for further guidance.

The review committee will use the evaluation Likert scale as presented in the Evaluation of Faculty - Policies and Procedures document.

- - 1. - Does Not Meet Expectations
    2. - Needs Improvement
    3. - Meets Expectations
    4. - Exceeds Expectations
    5. - Exemplary

Noteworthy achievement as referenced in BOR Policy 8.3.7.3 is reflective of a 4 or 5 on the above Likert Scale. Deficient and unsatisfactory as referenced throughout this document is reflective of a 1 or a 2 on the Likert Scale.

Each member of the Post-tenure Review Committee will review the dossier and provide a provide a rating for each evaluation category using the Likert scale. The scores will be averaged across the committee and rounded up or down according to standard base-ten math. For example, an average ranging from 2.5-2.9 will be recorded as a score of 3; an average ranging from 2.0-2.4 will be recorded as a score of 2. If the post-tenure scores fall short of the minimum prescribed standard - two scores of 4 (one of which must be teaching) and one score of 3 - the committee must determine through further examination whether the faculty member has, over the course of five-years, met the standard for successful post-tenure review. By majority vote, the review committee will declare the faculty member’s performance satisfactory or unsatisfactory and report their decision to the Vice President for Academic Affairs.

The committee report must identify areas of strength and weakness and justify their evaluation of them. For example, the committee might argue that an apparent weakness in professional development resulted from a faculty member scoring well in one category of professional development but less well in other categories of professional development. The committee might argue that a score of 3 in any area of professional development satisfies the post-tenure standard for a score of 3 in professional development.

If the Vice President for Academic Affairs agrees with the decision of the review committee, he or she will notify the faculty member, the Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs, and the President that the review has been successfully completed. If the Vice President for Academic Affairs does not agree with the decision of the review committee, he or she will give his or her points of disagreement to the review committee in writing and ask that they reconsider the faculty member's dossier. The final decision will rest with the review committee. The review committee will notify the faculty member, the associate vice president for academic affairs, vice president for academic affairs, and president of the final decision no later than the last day of the spring semester during which the dossier was submitted.

Rewards

A successful post-tenure review may be acknowledged with a merit pay increases and priority consideration for future professional development opportunities.

Performance Improvement Plan

In the event of a post-tenure review that does not meet expectations or needs improvement, the appropriate Campus Coordinator, Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs, and faculty member will work together to develop a formal Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) in consultation with the post-tenure review committee based around the deficiencies found by the committee.

Consistent with the developmental intent of the post-tenure review, the PIP must be designed to assist the faculty member in achieving progress towards remedying the deficiencies identified in the post-tenure review. The PIP must contain clearly defined goals or outcomes, an outline of activities to be undertaken, a timetable, available resources and supports, and an agreed-upon monitoring strategy. The PIP’s goals or outcomes must be reasonable, achievable with the timeframe, and reflect the essential duties of the faculty member. The PIP must be approved by the Associate Vice President of Academic Affairs and submitted to the institution’s Office of Academic Affairs or Human Resources wherever the permanent faculty files are housed. The Post-Tenure Review Committee will assess the PIP at formal meetings held no less than twice per semester during the fall and spring semesters. The assessment of the PIP will take the place of that year’s annual review.

Failure to successfully remediate the identified deficiencies, or demonstrate substantive progress towards remediation, within one year subjects the faculty member to disciplinary actions up to and including, but not limited to, reallocation of effort, salary reduction, and tenure revocation and dismissal. The institution will follow appropriate due process mechanisms for a faculty member to appeal the final assessment of their PIP and the resulting remedial actions as outlined below.

The appropriate Campus Coordinator must meet with each faculty member to discuss the results of post-tenure review. Each faculty member must receive a letter documenting the summary of the findings of the post-tenure review. In the event of an unsuccessful post-tenure review, the letter must also include next steps, due process rights, and the potential ramifications if the faculty member does not remediate or demonstrate substantive progress towards remediation in the areas identified as unsatisfactory. The faculty member can provide a written rebuttal that will be attached to the final document; however, no action is required by the Campus Coordinator.

If the faculty member successfully completes the performance improvement plan, then the faculty member’s next post-tenure review will take place on the regular five-year schedule.

If the faculty member fails to make sufficient progress in performance, then the institution shall take appropriate remedial action corresponding to the seriousness and nature of the faculty member’s deficiencies. The President will make the final determination on behalf of the institution regarding appropriate remedial action.

Corrective Post Tenure Review

A faculty member who receives a Likert scale rating of 1 or 2 in any of the evaluation criteria for two consecutive annual evaluations will participate in a corrective post-tenure review. Note that the deficiency does not have to be in the same area; but could be a different area from one year to the next. This review will be initiated prior to the normally scheduled five-year review. The faculty member will follow the institution's guidelines and procedures for post tenure review. If the outcome of the Corrective Post-Tenure Review is successful, the faculty member will reset the post-tenure review clock. If the outcome of a corrective post tenure review does not meet expectations or needs improvement, the same process for an unsuccessful post-tenure review will be followed. The appropriate due-process mechanisms for a faculty member to appeal a corrective post-tenure review is outlined below.

Due Process Following an Unsuccessful Post-Tenure Review or an Unsuccessful Corrective Post-Tenure Review

If, after conducting a final review of appropriate materials and allowing the faculty member an opportunity to be heard at the conclusion of the performance improvement plan, the Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs determines that the faculty member has failed to make sufficient progress in performance as outlined in the performance improvement plan (or has refused to engage reasonably in the process), the associate vice president for academic affairs will propose appropriate remedial action corresponding to the seriousness and nature of the faculty member’s deficiencies. Upon request by the faculty member, the post-tenure review committee will review the materials that attest to performance improvement plan progress and the proposed remedial action and make their recommendation.

The faculty member has 10 business days from receiving the recommendation of the Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs to request the post-tenure committee review. Upon request to review the recommended action by the faculty member, further due process will include the following:

1. 1. 1. The post-tenure review committee will review the recommendation of the associate vice president of academic affairs. The post-tenure review committee may exercise its judgment as to whether an in-person hearing is necessary. The recommendation of the post-tenure review committee may be based solely on a review of the record. The post-tenure review committee will issue its recommendation to the Vice President for Academic Affairs and the faculty member within 20 business days of the request for review by the faculty member.
    2. Within 5 business days of receiving the recommendation(s) from the post-tenure review committee, the Vice President for Academic Affairs shall send an official letter to the faculty member notifying him or her of the decision.
    3. The faculty member may appeal to the President of the institution within 5 business days of receiving the decision from the Vice President for Academic Affairs. The President’s final decision shall be made within 10 business days and should notify the faculty member of his or her decision and the process for discretionary review application as provided for in Board of Regents’ Policy.
    4. If the remedial action taken is dismissal by the President, the faculty member may complete their faculty assignment for the current semester at the discretion of the institution; however, the semester during which a final decision is issued will be the last semester of employment in their current role.
    5. An aggrieved faculty member may seek discretionary review of the institution’s final decision pursuant to Board policy on Applications for Discretionary Review (BOR Policy Manual 6.26 ).

Academic Administrators

Academic administrators who hold faculty rank and are aligned with an academic unit (hereafter “administrative faculty”) will receive an annual review by their appropriate supervisor and will undergo a comprehensive evaluation, including a 360° feedback assessment every five years (hereafter “five-year review”). Annual and five-year reviews will address traditional faculty activities (teaching, student success, research/scholarship, professional service, and professional growth) that align with the responsibilities of the administrator.

Administrative faculty contracts should designate percentage of workload comprised of faculty duties; in annual and five-year reviews, performance of faculty activities will be weighted according to the percentages designated by contract.

The five-year evaluation will include a post-tenure review according to institutional policy and in consideration of the distribution of duties outlined in the administrative faculty contract. Administrative faculty will have full recourse to remediation, improvement, and appeals processes within the Post-Tenure Review policy. Unsuccessful post-tenure review may result in loss of faculty rank and tenure.

Evaluation of Faculty