The University Wiki Service has upgraded the Confluence Server software, from version 5.9.14 to 5.10.8. Please refer to the knowledge base article, KB0015891, for a high level summary of upgrade changes. Thank you!

Page tree
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Review Process for Non-Tenure Track Faculty

 

Our College employs many faculty who work in non-tenure track positions (“teaching faculty”), with a wide variety of responsibilities and expectations.  Some are employed on a part-time or temporary basis, while others are considered full-time.  These determinations are made by departments.

For those instructors who are considered part-time and as temporary instructors, assessments are made each semester through departmental leadership on their teaching effectiveness and considering departmental curricular needs.  Department chairs and directors are expected to offer clear expectations and terms of employment with each instructor.  

Some instructors are employed on a full-time basis, and are expected to continue in their positions for a significant period of time.  These may include “lecturers,” “senior lecturers,” “distinguished lecturers,” “clinical assistant professors,” “clinical associate professors,” and “clinical professors.”  Higher ranks generally carry longer-term commitments. These instructors compose “roster faculty” and are expected to work at least one year, with duration specified by departments.  A full-time load is typically considered to be three courses per semester.

Roster faculty are evaluated on an annual basis, and offered feedback, through processes similar to that of other instructor assessments through departmental leadership and councils.  In addition to this annual review, roster faculty are assessed through third-year review processes, similar to that of those conducted with Assistant Professors.  These reviews are to be conducted in the sixth semester of continuous employment in conjunction with the annual review process.  Third-year reviews should consider indicators of teaching effectiveness (including course instructor surveys, at least one peer teaching review, or other measures determined by departments); other areas of importance to the department (such as professional productivity or service); and relevance to program needs.  If the instructor has pursued promotion during the period, that process takes the place of this review.

Reviews are used to determine reappointments of non-tenure track faculty members and in some cases for promotion, i.e. Lecturer to Senior Lecturer.  Unless serious issues cause concern or suggest that immediate improvements are needed, the next comprehensive review term is scheduled on a three-year cycle.  Otherwise, the case should be revisited and direction will be given in the negative evaluation as to next steps to evaluate progress.  The outcome of this evaluation may lead to not renewing the appointment. Each faculty member being reviewed shall be placed in one of the following categories:

 

  • Exceeds expectations – a clear and significant level of accomplishment beyond what is normal for the institution, discipline, or unit.
  • Meets expectations – normally expected level of accomplishment.
  • Does not meet expectations – a failure beyond what can be considered the normal range of year-to-year variation in performance, but of a character that appears to be subject to correction.

 

Note that a positive review may not lead to a longer-term appointment if prevented by budgetary constraints or shifting needs of the program, but a positive review is a necessary condition for a longer-term appointment and as previously stated, promotion to a higher Non-Tenure Track rank.  In any case, a report on each Non-Tenure Track Review should be provided to the Director of Faculty Advancement in the Dean’s Office, including the review, a description of the process, and the proposed term of reappointment.  Once this is approved, a letter of reappointment from the Dean’s Office is sent to the faculty member.