Quantitative.  The normal load at the 40-40-20 formula is four courses per academic year (two per semester).  Exceptions may be made for those in administrative roles.  Teaching assignments (specific courses) are made by a scheduling committee of the whole of the Faculty, headed by the Chair, who is the department’s Scheduling Officer.  The committee attempts to maintain balance in the assignment of graduate and undergraduate courses while being guided by the needs of our students for particular courses.

Qualitative.  We expect faculty to score overall in the EXC/VG columns on the attached student evaluation forms (by long experience, we recognize that there will be some individual students who rate a faculty member as G, P or VP and that there will be some items on which the person is not rated above G by any student: we look for a pattern) and to be described by students in the comment section as a person who embodies the qualities specified in that form.  When requested by a faculty member, peer evaluations are considered in assessing his or her overall teaching performance. 

Additional explanation of criteria:  A faculty member is expected to know his/her field thoroughly and to keep abreast of developments in that/those fields.  S/he is expected to motivate students in a positive way and to provide students with timely and practical feedback through exams, papers, and other instruments (with comments, not just grades).  Faculty members are expected to be available for consultation at OFFICE HOURS (OH) (an OH  list is maintained by the secretary and OH are to be announced in the syllabus and posted on office doors) and/or by appointment.

Thesis/Dissertation Direction is an important contribution to the graduate teaching function of the department.  Faculty members are expected to maintain expertise in their field so that they may direct students in an informed way as they develop a topic, do their research, and write their dissertation.  Timely return of drafts and efficient coordination with second and third readers (and as second and third readers) is part of appropriate performance of this duty.

Advising is considered an essential part of teaching and each faculty member is expected to contribute to the departmental advising effort, either in graduate advising, undergraduate major advising, freshman-sophomore advising, placement advising, or some combination of the above.  All faculty are expected to be aware of the rules for completion of requirements, etc., but emphasis is placed on advising students as persons interested in a liberal arts education, not simply on fulfilling requirements for graduation.

2.  Research.

Faculty are expected to remain active in their fields by keeping abreast of current developments and maintaining an ongoing, continuous record of scholarly productivity.  In the Department of French and Italian, scholarship is defined as research conducted, the results of which are submitted for professional evaluation, review, and criticism to peers through recognized media.  The most significant measure of scholarly productivity includes: publication of books, monographs, articles in refereed journals and venues, critical editions, translations, or anthologies with scholarly critical apparatus, and critical biographies.  Publication in in-house media and in non-refereed journals is also valued but does not carry as much weight. Competitive awards and grants from agencies of national standing are another useful index of an individual’s success in obtaining recognition for research. Participation in symposia, conferences, and professional meetings is another outlet for publicizing and testing the results of one’s research. The presentation of papers often lacks the formal review procedure and critical response provided by publications, and in those cases such activity is not sufficient in itself as evidence of scholarly productivity. Both the quality of research and the quantity of research will be valued.

In the case of faculty in the field of French language pedagogy, applied linguistics, and Romance linguistics, the publication of refereed books, book chapters, and journal articles is evidence of scholarly productivity.  Textbooks, sourcebooks, instructional software, and other audio/visual media that incorporate and present theoretical ideas or advances in pedagogy are also evidence of scholarly productivity, provided they are refereed and published by nationally or internationally recognized publishers.

3.  Service.

All faculty are expected to contribute to the functioning of the department, the College, the University, and the community by serving on committees, fulfilling administrative duties, serving in professional organizations, etc.  Tenured professors are expected to make more substantial contributions in this area than untenured professors. 

[The attached Faculty Self-Evaluation Report Form (see Appendix C), completed each year by each faculty member, indicates how each of these categories is covered in the evaluation process.]

C.         Differential Allocation of Effort.  Individual differential allocations of effort will be reviewed each year for tenured faculty to allow for individual flexibility and to assure equal opportunity to each faculty member for new allocations while maintaining the ideal balance of 40-40-20 for the department as a whole.

The Department of French and Italian expects faculty to devote equal attention to teaching and research. When evaluating faculty performance, the department applies the weights of 40 percent for teaching, 40 percent for research, and 20 percent for service to the university, community, and profession. These weights are the same for tenured and non-tenured faculty, although the department recognizes that the specific contributions of faculty members to the department’s mission will differ depending on career stage.
Changes in the standards 40/40/20 allocation of effort for a set period of time can be initiated by the tenured faculty member or department chair. These changes can be short- or long-term and must correspond to changes in work-load not just evaluation criteria. Reasons for alterations can include short-term items such as funded research or longer term career-stage issues.  Faculty members in the Department of French and Italian are not allowed to reduce their teaching or research to less than 30 percent and their service to less than 10% on permanent DAE agreements. Departmental needs take precedence over individual needs when making decisions to alter a faculty member’s allocation of effort; such redistribution must be consistent with the best interests of the unit.  The most likely occasion for consideration of such changes is in discussion between the chair and the individual faculty member following annual performance evaluations, or sooner so that appropriate arrangements may be made at the unit level for the coverage of course offerings.  The Chair will consider each case, then assign percentages and approve the statement of goals and expectations.  Faculty members may contest the Chair's decision; arbitration by a faculty committee of three persons will be used if discussion does not lead to a mutually acceptable solution.  Any individualized changes in faculty allocation of effort will be negotiated with the Chair and documented in the faculty member's personnel file. 

For temporary DAE agreements (one academic year or less), the DAE is ultimately approved by the chair of the unit. For permanent DAE agreements (lasting one year or beyond), approval must also be sought from the appropriate contact dean in the College. All Differential Allocation of Efforts are reported annually to the College Dean's Office. For permanent DAEs, the supporting documentation is also provided to the College and the Provost's Offices.

Annual Evaluation System.

Overview.

Evaluations are conducted at the beginning of the spring semester for the previous calendar year.  The Chair is responsible for informing faculty that self-evaluations are due on a given date (usually in January).  At the beginning of each evaluation period, the Chair will consult with each faculty member and determine the goals and expectations for that person, including any differential allocation of effort in the three categories for the upcoming academic year.  The department’s Faculty Evaluation Board through reviews those self-evaluations plus all other documentation typically during February though mid-March.  Following the Faculty Evaluation Board’s deliberations, the Chair prepares a written evaluation for each faculty member typically at the end of March.  A minimum of a full week is allowed for the faculty members to review the Chair’s statements and, if they choose to do so, to make appointments to discuss the evaluation.   All of this takes place well before the time usually set for merit salary decisions, allowing for sufficient time for the opportunity for discussion of the evaluation.

Portfolio Preparation.

The portfolio will consist of the “Faculty Self-Evaluation Report Form” (see Appendix C) that each faculty member submits to the Faculty Evaluation Board for review and of documents that the Chair adds as they are received during the year.  The self evaluation will contain, in addition to a current CV and a detailed outline of what has been accomplished in the previous calendar year, all relevant materials documenting teaching/advising, research, and service,, including, but not restricted to: copies of all published research, any supporting documentation regarding the quality of publications (reviews of and/or references to the work), student evaluations for each course taught (both numerical results from the current University’s “Student Survey of Teaching” form and written comments from the department’s separate Written Comments Questionnaire) (see Appendix A), unsolicited letters from students, and supporting documentation regarding quality of service.  The documents added by the Chair may include peer evaluations and letters addressed to the Chair.  The Chair will inform the faculty member of the number and type of those additions, as is done in the promotion and tenure process.

Portfolio Review and Evaluation.

The Faculty Evaluation Board will review the portfolio, as described above in “Overview.” In assessing quantity, the Board will take into account (1) the elected percentages for the year in question, (2) the department’s statement of criteria for evaluation produced for that year--e.g. number of active committee memberships for service, number of publications for research, and number of courses taught for teaching.  In assessing quality, the Board will take into account the department’s statement of criteria and a review of the data provided (e.g., publications, student evaluations and peer evaluations for teaching, reviews and significant references to works for publications, and specific comments from colleagues on service).  The significance and impact of the faculty member’s contributions will be evaluated globally, as a function of both quantity and quality of performance, viewed in the context of departmental expectations. The rating system will be that used in Promotion and Tenure procedures: Exceptional, Very Good, Good, Marginal, Poor.

Annual Evaluation Feedback Process.

A.        As stated in the overview, each faculty member will receive first a written letter from the Chair conveying the evaluation made by the Faculty Evaluation Board, then have the opportunity for a personal discussion with the Chair regarding that evaluation. The faculty member may then also request to meet with the Faculty Evaluation Board.  The meeting with the Faculty Evaluation Board should take place within three weeks of receipt of the Chair’s letter conveying the initial evaluation.

B.         The written evaluation by the chair will be as explicit as possible, with--as appropriate--recommendations for improvement, based on recommendations by the Faculty Evaluation Board.  The format will follow the same format as in previous years, including a separate section on each category of responsibility and referring to both quantity and quality of performance in each one.  Ratings will be given, as indicated above.  In addition, any information on progress toward tenure and/or promotion is also provided.  A copy of the written evaluation is maintained in the faculty member’s personnel file.

Conflict Resolution/Review Process (in cases where there is disagreement concerning the evaluation).

A.        As stated earlier, each faculty member is expected to submit a self-evaluation with all relevant supporting documentation, and the Chair may add other relevant documents, informing the faculty member of the nature and quantity of such documents.  In response to the Faculty Evaluation Board’s evaluation, a faculty member may provide further documentation and comments. In case of disagreement with the evaluation, the faculty member may appeal for reconsideration to the Faculty Evaluation Board.

B.         Should the faculty member not find resolution at the unit level appeal, the faculty member has the right to appeal this evaluation through appropriate administrative channels in the event disagreement should arise in the course of the evaluation.  The faculty member may request a review by a faculty committee designated to hear such matters in the College.  The review committee will issue a non-binding recommendation on the appropriateness of this conclusion to the chairperson.  The chairperson may change the evaluation after receiving the committee's decision, or may choose not to do so.  In any event, the report of the committee will become a permanent part of the faculty member's personnel file within the department and shall be available to the faculty member.

Outcomes of the Annual Performance Evaluation.

Departmental and Individual Professional Goals.

The annual evaluation process yields multiple outcomes.  The Chair will work with each faculty member at the annual review (and thereafter) to assure that the review process fosters professional growth for that individual. The Chair will also apply the discussion and results of the evaluations to her/his efforts to build on the strengths of the department, to address weaknesses, and to set new or revised goals.

Differential Allocation of Effort.

Individual differential allocations of effort will be reviewed each year for tenured faculty to allow for individual flexibility and to assure equal opportunity to each faculty member for new allocations while maintaining the ideal balance of 40-40-20 for the department as a whole.

Personnel Decisions.

The Chair will refer to annual evaluations as s/he reviews a faculty member’s application for sabbatical leave and the department committee’s recommendation for promotion (and, as applicable, tenure) for a faculty member.   As appropriate, the Chair will consult the evaluations over a period of years in considering possible reassignment of responsibilities: performance evaluation provides data for the selection of departmental officers, award recipients, directors of the summer abroad programs, etc.

Merit Salary Decisions.

The Faculty Evaluation Board’s recommendations for merit salary allocations will take into account explicitly the results of the annual evaluation.

Failure to Meet Performance Expectations

Under the university's post-tenure review policy, if the chair ascertains that a faculty member's performance seems to be failing to meet academic responsibilities, the administrator and the faculty member shall develop a written plan of methods to improve the faculty member's performance. The plan may include appropriate provisions for faculty development, such as campus opportunities for faculty continued renewal and development, or for other appropriate interventions, such as counseling, medical leave, or a change in teaching assignments. The chairperson may call upon the University administration for assistance in constructing such a plan, including provision for additional resources, where needed. A faculty member may reject any plan recommended to aid performance levels, but the faculty member must understand that a sustained overall failure to meet academic responsibilities is a basis for dismissal.

If a faculty member has been informed that his or her overall performance fails to meet academic responsibilities or if the faculty member is not satisfied with the outcome of the administrative review within the department, the faculty member may request a review by a faculty committee designated to hear such matters in the College. The review committee will issue a non-binding recommendation on the appropriateness of this conclusion to the chairperson. The chairperson may change the evaluation after receiving the committee's decision, or may choose not to do so. In any event, the report of the committee will become a permanent part of the faculty member's personnel file within the department and shall be available to the faculty member.

The Department Chair shall consult annually with the Dean, and the Dean shall consult annually with the Provost, on the progress of any faculty member who falls within the category of overall failure to meet minimum academic responsibilities.

Based upon the judgment that there has been a sustained overall failure to meet academic responsibilities, a dean may recommend to the Provost that a tenured faculty member be dismissed. In making this determination, the dean shall consider the nature of the failure to meet academic responsibilities, the reason or reasons for this failure, the number of years that the faculty member has failed to meet academic responsibilities, the level of discernible improvement in the faculty member's performance after being notified of any failure in performance, and the extent to which the faculty member has complied with the terms of any plan developed to improve the faculty member's performance. The Provost will review the case and, if the Provost agrees with the dean's recommendation, the Provost will recommend to the Chancellor that the faculty member be dismissed. If the Chancellor agrees and recommends dismissal, this recommendation will go to the Faculty Rights Board.

Should any recommendation to dismiss be brought against a tenured faculty member based exclusively or in part on grounds of sustained failure to meet academic responsibilities, both the report(s) of the review committee(s), the annual written evaluation(s) of the unit administrator concerning the faculty member, any outside evaluations, and any germane written response by the faculty member to the charges shall be made available to the Faculty Rights Board.

 

Faculty Development Opportunities.
 
1.  Mentoring of probationary faculty members is formalized as follows.

The Department, in the spirit of collegiality and in order to ensure effective mentorship, will annually review the progress toward tenure of probationary (untenured but tenure-track) faculty.  This advisory review will be completed by April 10th, typically in years one, two, and four of the tenure-track appointment.  To conduct the review, the Chair will appoint a subcommittee of the Departmental Committee on Promotion and Tenure (DCPT), consisting of the faculty member’s official mentor and two other tenured professors from the Department.  Membership of the subcommittee will rotate among tenured faculty members from year to year, with the exception of the faculty mentor, who will remain a member of subcommittee. The subcommittee will be appointed by October 1st of the review year.  Members of the subcommittee should meet informally with the untenured faculty member throughout the year, as the need arises.  By April 10th of the review year, the subcommittee will meet with the probationary faculty member to review his or her progress toward tenure, using the dossier or dossiers submitted for the annual merit salary evaluations, as well as the formal “Progress Toward Tenure Review” form.

2.  Peer evaluation of a probationary faculty member’s teaching will be accomplished by classroom visitations.  At least one visit every academic year by an Associate Professor or Professor will be made to one course taught by every Assistant Professor. A brief written report will be given to the instructor by the visiting faculty member within three weeks of the visit.  A copyof this report will be filed by the chair. Peer evaluations of teaching should reflect multiple sources of information, including review of course materials. Peer evaluators should examine a syllabus and samples written assignments for the class to be observed.  Over time, peer evaluators should include a variety of class sizes and instructional levels (e.g., undergraduate, graduate, survey, upper division course, etc.) as appropriate to the candidate’s instructional responsibilities. The resulting evaluations should address both strengths and weaknesses.  The DCPT will assign peer evaluators for probationary faculty members.

3.  It will be the responsibility of the Chair to guide all faculty members in considering committee memberships and in running for elected positions. Furthermore, the Chair will be expected to encourage collegial recognition of the importance of various kinds of service, helping to create an atmosphere conducive to participation in the important activities of University Governance, fellowship committees, etc.”

4.  Research Intensive Semesters (RIS):  CLAS offers all junior faculty members in good standing a reduced teaching responsibility at some point during the faculty member’s pretenure employment. Faculty members will be released from classroom teaching duties for up to two courses, depending upon the relevant departmental teaching expectations, and will be expected to concentrate on research intensive activities. Faculty members are eligible for a research intensive semester assignment up to and including the spring semester before their publication dossiers are sent out to external reviewers in June, with the latest possible Research Intensive Semester (RIS) assignment typically being the second semester of the fifth year. Faculty members in good standing who have stopped their tenure clock remain eligible for a RIS assignment. The actual decision of which year/semester the individual is assigned a research intensive semester will be made in consultation with the department chair. Note that paid leaves and fellowships do not take the place of a RIS.  Once the unit director approves the RIS for the junior faculty member, the details concerning the RIS should be confirmed to the faculty member in writing and documented in their personnel file. The unit director also provides a copy of this authorization to the College Dean’s Office so that RIS data can be tracked.  Faculty members who are granted a RIS are expected to continue to meet their usual duties regarding departmental advising and other service activities.

5.  Faculty can also avail themselves to the services of the Center for Teaching Excellence and the hall Center for the Humanities for teaching and grant-related assistance and support.

           

Appendices.

Appendix A:  Instrument(s) used in the evaluation of student teaching.
The Department utilizes the University’s “Student Survey of Teaching” form and the Department’s “Course Evaluation Form: Written Comments Questionnaire” for this purpose.

Appendix B:  Promotion and Tenure Procedures for the Department of French and Italian.

Appendix C:  Faculty Self-Evaluation Report Form.

 

DEPARTMENT OF FRENCH & ITALIAN
COURSE EVALUATION FORM: WRITTEN COMMENTS QUESTIONNAIRE

 

Department and Course Number   ____________________________________________

Instructor ________________________________   5-digit class number   __ __ __ __ __

Semester and Year ________________________________________________________

The purpose of this supplemental form is to give you an opportunity to address in written comments the effectiveness of this course and the instructor. This evaluation, along with those of your fellow students, will be used in annual faculty, instructor, and GTA evaluations.  Your comments will remain anonymous.

 

A.  What aspects of the course particularly heightened or diminished your motivation, interest, and ability to learn?

 

 

 

 

 

B.  What aspects of the instructor’s teaching particularly heightened or diminished your motivation, interest, and ability to learn?

­

 

 

 

 

C.  Constructive suggestions for the course and/or instructor:

Promotion and Tenure Procedures for the Department of French and Italian
Adopted by Faculty Votes on 11 December 2008 and February 19 2009

 

General Provisions

Scope and Purpose.  The award of tenure and/or promotion in rank are among the most important and far-reaching decisions made by the University because an excellent faculty is an essential component of any outstanding institution of higher learning.  Promotion and tenure decisions also have a profound effect on the lives and careers of faculty.  Recommendations concerning promotion and tenure must be made carefully, based upon a thorough examination of the candidate’s record and the impartial application of clearly articulated standards pursuant to prescribed procedures.    

It is the purpose of these procedures to promote the rigorous and fair evaluation of faculty performance during the promotion and tenure process by (a) Establishing university-wide standards and procedures for the evaluation of teaching scholarship, and service; (b) Creating a mechanism for the approval of written criteria and procedures by the department; (c) Preserving and enhancing the participatory rights of candidates, including the basic right to be informed about critical stages of the process and to have an opportunity to respond to negative evaluations; and, (d) Clarifying the responsibilities, roles, and relationships of the participants in the promotion and tenure review process so as to promote more effective interaction among them.

Each level of review, including the initial review, the intermediate review, and the university level review, conducts an independent evaluation of a candidate’s record of performance and makes independent recommendations to the Chancellor.  Later stages of review neither affirm nor reverse earlier recommendations, which remain part of the record for consideration by the Chancellor.  It is the responsibility of each person involved in the review process to exercise his/her own judgment to evaluate a faculty member’s teaching scholarship, and service based upon the entirety of the data and information in the record.   No single source of information, such as peer review letters, shall be considered a conclusive indicator of quality.

Academic Freedom.  All faculty members, regardless of rank, are entitled to academic freedom in relation to teaching and scholarship, and the right as citizens to speak on matters of public concern.  Likewise, all faculty members, regardless of rank, bear the obligation to exercise their academic freedom responsibly and in accordance with the accepted standards of their academic disciplines.
                        
Tenured faculty members may be dismissed only for adequate cause, in cases of program discontinuance, or under extraordinary circumstances caused by financial exigency.

Confidentiality.  Consideration and evaluation of a faculty member’s record is a confidential personnel matter.

No person shall participate in any aspect of the promotion and tenure process concerning a candidate when participation would create a clear conflict of interest or compromise the impartiality of an evaluation or recommendation.

If a candidate believes that there is a conflict of interest, the candidate may petition to have that person recuse him/herself.  If a committee member does not recuse him/herself, a decision about whether that person has a conflict of interest shall be made by a majority of the other committee members.

 

Promotion and Tenure Standards

General Principles.  The University strives for a consistent standard of quality against which the performance of all faculty members is measured.  Nonetheless, the nature of faculty activities varies across the University and a faculty member’s record must be evaluated in light of his/her particular responsibilities and the expectations of the discipline.  Teaching and scholarship should normally be given primary consideration, but the particular weight to be accorded to each component of a faculty member’s activities depends upon the responsibilities of the faculty member.  The College has traditionally recognized the 40-40-20 formula for weighting research, teaching, and service.  There is some flexibility in this weighted formula to assign a differential allocation of effort to a tenured faculty member, in light of the needs of the tenured faculty member and the departmental needs and aspirations. The award of tenure must take into account any prior service credited but will be based largely on evidence of achievement since joining the faculty. Promotion to a new rank must be based principally upon evidence of achievement since the last promotion, or, for a person’s first promotion, since the initial appointment to the faculty.

Teaching.  Teaching is a primary function of the University, which strives to provide an outstanding education for its students.  The evaluation of teaching in the Department of French and Italian includes consideration of syllabi, course materials, and other information related to a faculty member’s courses; peer and student evaluations; a candidate’s own statement of teaching philosophy and goals; public representations of teaching; and other accepted methods of evaluation, which may include external evaluations.  (Student evaluations include, for all courses taught, results from the University’s “Student Survey of Teaching” and results from the separate Department of French and Italian  “Course Evaluation Form: Written Comments Questionnaire.”  Both sets of evaluations will become part of DCPT’s evaluation of the candidate’s teaching, and both sets will be forwarded to CCAPT and UCPT as part of the candidate’s dossier.)

High quality teaching is serious intellectual work grounded in a deep knowledge and understanding of the field and includes the ability to convey that understanding in clear and engaging ways.

The conduct of classes is the central feature of teaching responsibilities at KU, but teaching also includes supervising student research, mentoring and advising students, and other teaching-related activities outside of the classroom. Voluntary participation on SLI programs is considered part of teaching.

For the award of tenure and/or promotion to associate professor, the record must demonstrate effective teaching, as reflected in such factors as command of the subject matter, the ability to communicate effectively in the classroom, a demonstrated commitment to student learning, and involvement in advising and providing support for students outside the classroom. 
                                                
For promotion to the rank of professor, the record must demonstrate continued effectiveness and growth as a teacher, as reflected in such factors as mastery of the subject matter, strong classroom teaching skills, an ongoing commitment to student learning, and active involvement in advising and providing support for students outside the classroom.    

Scholarship.  The concept of “scholarship” encompasses not only traditional academic research and publication, but also the creation of artistic works or performances and any other products or activities accepted by the academic discipline as reflecting scholarly effort and achievement for purposes of promotion and tenure. While the nature of scholarship varies among disciplines, the University adheres to a consistently high standard of quality in its scholarly activities to which all faculty members, regardless of discipline, are held.   In the Department of French and Italian, scholarship is defined as research conducted, the results of which are submitted for professional evaluation, review, and criticism to peers through recognized media.  The most significant measure of scholarly productivity includes: publication of books, monographs, articles in refereed journals and venues, critical editions, translations, or anthologies with scholarly critical apparatus, and critical biographies.  Publication in in-house media and in non-refereed journals is also valued but does not carry as much weight. Competitive awards and grants from agencies of national standing are another useful index of an individual’s success in obtaining recognition for research. Participation in symposia, conferences, and professional meetings is another outlet for publicizing and testing the results of one’s research. The presentation of papers often lacks the formal review procedure and critical response provided by publications, and in those cases such activity is not sufficient in itself as evidence of scholarly productivity. Both the quality of research and the quantity of research will be valued.

In the case of faculty in the field of French language pedagogy, applied linguistics, and Romance linguistics, the publication of refereed books, book chapters, and journal articles is evidence of scholarly productivity.  Textbooks, sourcebooks, instructional software, and other audio/visual media that incorporate and present theoretical ideas or advances in pedagogy are also evidence of scholarly productivity, provided they are refereed and published by nationally or internationally recognized publishers.

For the award of tenure and/or promotion to the rank of associate professor, the record must demonstrate a successfully developing scholarly career, as reflected in such factors as the quality and quantity of publications or creative activities, external reviews of the candidate’s work by respected scholars or practitioners in the field, the candidate’s regional, national, or international reputation, and other evidence of an active and productive scholarly agenda. Continuing productivity after the completion of the dissertation, from the time of one’s formal entry into a professional academic career, is expected.

For promotion to the rank of professor, the record must demonstrate an established scholarly career, as reflected in such factors as a substantial and ongoing pattern of publication or creative activity, external reviews of the candidate’s work by eminent scholars in the field, the candidate’s national or international reputation, and other evidence of an active and productive scholarly career.

Service.  Service is an important responsibility of all faculty members that contributes to the University’s performance of its larger mission.  Although the nature of service activities will depend on a candidate’s particular interests and abilities, service contributions are an essential part of being a good citizen of the University.  The Department of French and Italian accepts and values scholarly extramural service to the discipline or profession, service within the University, and public service at the local, state, national, or international level.  Voluntary participation on Summer Language Institute programs is considered part of service.

For the award of tenure and/or promotion to associate professor, the record must demonstrate a pattern of service to the University at one or more levels, to the discipline or profession, and/or to the local, state, national, or international communities.

For promotion to the rank of professor, the record must demonstrate an ongoing pattern of service reflecting substantial contributions to the University at one or more levels, to the discipline or profession, and/or to the local, state, national, or international communities.

Criteria for Review.  The criteria shall provide for the evaluation of teaching, scholarship, and service as “excellent,” “very good,” “good,” “marginal,” or “poor,” defined as follows:
(a) “Excellent” means that the candidate substantially exceeds disciplinary and department/unit expectations for tenure and/or promotion to this rank.
(b) “Very Good” means the candidate exceeds disciplinary and department/unit expectations for tenure and/or promotion to this rank.
(c) “Good” means the candidate meets disciplinary and department/unit expectations for tenure and/or promotion to this rank.
(d) “Marginal” means the candidate falls below disciplinary and department/unit expectations for tenure and/or promotion to this rank.
(e)  “Poor” means the candidate falls significantly below disciplinary and department/unit expectations for tenure and/or promotion to this rank.

Absent exceptional circumstances, successful candidates for promotion and tenure will meet disciplinary expectations in all categories, and strong candidates are likely to exceed normal expectations in one or more categories.
                                     
Procedures for Review.  Responsibility for the initial review lies with the department in which the candidate has his or her principal appointment.  The initial review shall be conducted pursuant to section 5 of Article VI of the Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations.  The unit review committee (consisting of all faculty holding the appropriate academic rank) shall evaluate the candidate’s research, teaching, and service. 

No students or untenured faculty members, except unclassified academic staff with the rank equivalent to or higher than associate professor, shall serve on the department  promotion and tenure committee or vote on any recommendation concerning promotion and tenure.

A summary evaluation section will be prepared by the DCPT and shared with the candidate upon completion of the initial review. The evaluation section shall include:  (a) the recommendation of the committee, its rating of the candidate in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service, and a statement of the reasons for those ratings; (b) if the initial or intermediate procedures provide for the faculty holding the necessary rank to vote as a committee of the whole, whether the committee of the whole concurred in the recommendations; and, (c) the concurrence or non-concurrence of the department chair or the Dean of the College.

Initiation of Review.  Prior to the beginning of the spring semester, the Provost notifies all faculty whose mandatory review year will be the following academic year, with copies provided to department chairs.  Upon receipt of this notice or if a faculty member requests it prior to the mandatory review year, the department shall initiate procedures for evaluating the candidate for the award of tenure.

As part of the annual faculty evaluation process, the department shall consider the qualifications of all tenured faculty members below the rank of full professor, with a view toward possible promotion in rank during the following academic year.  After considering a faculty member’s qualifications, if the department determines that those qualifications may warrant promotion in rank, it shall initiate procedures for reviewing the faculty member for promotion.

It is the responsibility of the candidate to complete the appropriate portions of the form and provide necessary documents and information in accordance with the Provost’s guidelines, with assistance from the department conducting the initial review.

The department, as the committee responsible for the initial review, shall receive the form and accompanying materials from the candidate and finish compiling the record of the candidate’s teaching, scholarship, and service in accordance with the Provost’s guidelines.  The committee shall follow the approved written procedures for initial review.

The departmental review committee shall provide for the solicitation of outside reviewers to assist in the evaluation of a faculty member’s scholarship and in accordance with College procedures.  Emphasis shall be placed on selecting reviewers who hold academic rank or a professional position equal to or greater than the rank for which the candidate is being considered. 

When soliciting external reviews of a candidate’s scholarship, the department committee shall inform prospective reviewers of the extent to which the candidate will have access to the review.  The College's confidentiality policy regarding soliciting external reviewers for the promotion and tenure review process is as follows:

"As a part of the promotion and/or tenure review process, we are soliciting assessments of Professor ____’s research contributions from academic colleagues and distinguished professionals.  These letters will become part of the candidate's promotion and tenure dossier and are treated as confidential by the University to the extent we are permitted to do so by law."

Recommendations. Upon completion of the record, the committee conducting the initial review (DCPT) shall evaluate the candidate’s record of teaching, scholarship, and service in light of the applicable standards and criteria and make recommendations concerning the award of tenure and/or promotion in rank. 

The following is the structure of the French and Italian Department Committee on Promotion and/or Tenure (DCPT):

When promoting from the rank of Assistant Professor to Associate Professor: the tenured faculty of French and Italian comprise the DCPT to prepare the candidate’s promotion and tenure file (Blue Form). A minimum of at least five faculty members is necessary to conduct an evaluation. Normally the chair of the Department will serve as the chair of the DCPT.

When/if there is not the minimum number of five tenured department members available to serve on the DCPT, the tenured faculty will ask the Dean of the College to appoint an appropriate number of outside members from KU’s faculty in order to reach the number of five.

The Dean will select the outside member(s) mentioned above from a pool of five tenured professors to be selected by the DCPT. In order to form that pool, the candidate will be invited to suggest up to three outside members of KU’s faculty which the DCPT may take into consideration.  The candidate will also be allowed to indicate up to three names s/he would not like on the list; the DCPT will honor that indication. The candidate will not vote on the membership of the pool to be submitted to the Dean.

When promoting from the rank of Associate Professor to Full Professor: consistent with the principle that at least five faculty members are necessary to conduct an evaluation, the DCPT will be comprised of those tenured faculty holding the rank of Full Professor and the Chair of the Department of French and Italian (regardless of rank). If the DCPT does not number at least five members from that constituency, then an appropriate number of tenured Associate Professors from French and Italian will be chosen by witnessed, random draw. If an appropriate number of Associate Professors can/will not serve, then outside members from KU’s faculty will be appointed to bring the total to five. All members of the DCPT will have full voice and vote. (When the department is able to form a committee of five holding the rank of professor, it is understood that the associate professors and outside members from KU will not be needed to serve.) The committee will elect its chair from among the departmental members serving on the DCPT.

The Dean will select the outside member(s) mentioned above from a pool of five Full Professors at KU to be selected by the DCPT. In order to form that pool, the DCPT will invite the candidate to suggest up to three outside members of KU’s faculty which the DCPT may take into consideration.  The candidate will also be allowed to indicate up to three names s/he would not like on the list; the DCPT will honor that indication. The candidate will not vote on the membership of the pool to be submitted to the Dean.
 
Three subcommittees, corresponding to the three areas of teaching, research and service, are then formed from the membership of the DCPT. (There may be some overlap in membership among these committees.) The chair of the DCPT discusses the membership of the three subcommittees with the candidate whose suggestions may be taken into consideration, but are not binding upon the DCPT’s final decision.

Departmental procedures stipulate that the committee recommendation shall be forwarded for consideration to a committee of the whole consisting of all faculty members holding the appropriate academic rank in the department.

The department chair shall communicate the recommendations of the initial review to the candidate and provide the candidate with a copy of the corresponding evaluation section of the promotion and tenure form.  Negative recommendations shall be communicated in writing and, if the review will not be forwarded automatically, the chair shall inform the candidate that he or she may request that the record be forwarded for further review.

Favorable recommendations, together with the record of the initial review, shall be forwarded to the College Committee on Appointments Promotion, and Tenure conducting the intermediate review.  Negative recommendations resulting from an initial review shall go forward for intermediate or UCPT review only if it is the candidate’s mandatory review year or if the candidate requests it.

 

Intermediate Review 

Record for Review.  The candidate may submit a written response to a negative recommendation at the initial departmental review level, or to a final rating of teaching, research, or service below the level of “good” included in the evaluation section of the recommendation.  The written response goes forward with the dossier to the next level of review at CCAPT. 

Request for Information.  A request for information by the intermediate review committee (CCAPT) shall be sent to the department chair who shall immediately provide a copy to the candidate and inform the initial review committee (DCPT).  Upon notification of a request for information from the CCAPT, all the following steps should take place.   The Chair will  (1) immediately inform the DCPT and summarize the contents of the request-for-information letter for the DCPT, (2) immediately inform the candidate that the request for information has taken place and as soon as possible will officially summarize by letter the nature of the CCAPT concerns, affording the candidate the maximum feasible amount of time for a response, (3) make all materials pertinent to the request for information available to the DCPT, (4) call a meeting of the DCPT to be held in a timely fashion, using as a general guideline two working days before the DCPT’s response is due, in order to allow for ample time to draft an answer acceptable to the constituency of the DCPT.

The candidate shall be afforded an opportunity to participate in the preparation of the department’s response and/or to submit his/ her own documentation or comment to the CCAPT.