• School of Education
• About
• Policy Library
• SOE Tenure, Promotion & Retention
• Procedures for the Evaluation, Retention and Promotion, and Award of Tenure for Members of the Faculty of the School of Education

Procedures for the Evaluation, Retention and Promotion, and Award of Tenure for Members of the Faculty of the School of Education

I. FACULTY EVALUATION COMMITTEE

1. The Faculty Evaluation Committee shall consist of five tenured members elected by the faculty for staggered terms, three terms expiring in odd years and two expiring in even years. For each associate professor elected to the committee a corresponding full professor shall be elected annually as an alternate. In the event that a member of the Committee comes up for review, promotion to full professor, or when post-tenure review is considered, the elected alternate full professor member(s) shall serve on the committee for those specific evaluation cases. The Committee shall elect its chair/co-chairs from its elected members annually. The Committee shall evaluate eligible School of Education Faculty, guided by approved policies and procedures for the evaluation of Faculty for retention, promotion, and award of tenure.
2. According to the procedures outlined in this document and the standards and procedures prescribed by the Bylaws, the Committee shall prepare a written report on each faculty member reviewed, and make recommendations to the Dean regarding retention, promotion, tenure and post-tenure review.
3. All actions of this Committee will be consistent with the existing policies of the College, the provisions of the most recent version of the Faculty Handbook, the Fair Practice Requirements of Affirmative Action Policies, the Virginia Freedom of Information Act [Section 2.1-340.1 to 2.1-346.1 of the Code of Virginia (1950) as amended], and the American Association of University Professors Guidelines.

II. ASSUMPTIONS

1. The two primary concerns of the Faculty Evaluation Committee are formative and summative evaluation, conducted in a climate that encourages faculty development; periodic peer evaluation is a major mechanism for acknowledging faculty development.
2. Each member of the Faculty is considered to be a competent professional and the appropriate person to present his/her credentials to the Faculty Evaluation Committee. The Committee may request additional data from the faculty member upon notifying the faculty member in writing.
3. The documentation of competency in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service shall serve as the basis of the Committee's evaluations. Outside evaluation of an individual's scholarly contribution to a field of study will also be solicited for each individual considered for tenure and promotion to associate professor and promotion to full professor. The Dean’s Office staff coordinates the collection of external letters of evaluation.
4. All data considered by the Committee will be made available to an evaluated faculty member upon request, and in accordance with the existing policies of the College.
5. All faculty newly employed after January 1, 2017 shall be evaluated using these evaluation criteria, which were adopted by the Faculty at its meeting February 16, 2005, and most recently amended on September 27, 2017 with the Faculty’s approval.
6. Prior to Committee review of applicant portfolios, the Dean will notify the Committee of all Memoranda of Understanding specifications and/or other special arrangements that may impact the current applicants’ performance expectations in teaching, scholarship, and/or service.

III. ELIGIBILITY FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE

1. Decisions regarding the award of tenure are made before the end of five and half years of applicable service. The request for promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor may coincide with, but shall not precede, evaluation for the award of tenure. Consideration for promotion to the rank of full professor usually requires a minimum of five years in rank as associate professor at the College of William and Mary. Other time-related requests must be approved by the Dean.
2. School of Education administrators holding tenure-eligible faculty rank will be evaluated for promotion and tenure only within the context of their faculty duties using the three criteria as stated in the most recent version of the Faculty Handbook.

IV. PROCEDURES FOR SCHEDULED REVIEWS

A. GENERAL PROCEDURES

1. All evaluations will be conducted within the parameters described in the most recent version of the Faculty Handbook and within the procedures and profiles established and approved by the Faculty of the School of Education. Each member of the Faculty will submit evidence or documentation for each of the criteria identified in these procedures.
2. Each tenure-eligible member of the Faculty holding academic rank and assigned to duties within the School of Education will be evaluated by the Faculty Evaluation Committee. Unless otherwise specified in the initial contract, each tenure-eligible faculty member will be evaluated during the third year, and at the beginning of the sixth year of appointment for a recommendation on the award of tenure. Tenured faculty are evaluated under two conditions: for promotion consideration to the rank of professor; or, under the conditions specified in Section V.A. below. The Dean of the School of Education will notify in writing all faculty identified for evaluation by April 15 of each year. The decision to consider a faculty member for promotion may be initiated at the request of the faculty member, or by a majority vote of the Faculty Evaluation Committee, or by a request from the Dean, with the faculty member's approval. In any case, the faculty member may withdraw from consideration at any point in the process.
3. The Dean will provide a list of faculty members to be reviewed the subsequent fall by May 1 to the Chair/Co-Chairs of the Faculty Evaluation Committee. The list will include the tenure-eligible faculty member scheduled for required reviews and any tenured faculty member who has requested, in accordance with section III.B., evaluation for promotion to full professor. The Faculty Evaluation Committee will offer to meet with faculty members scheduled for review during the next academic year, no later than May 15 of the year preceding evaluation.
4. External evaluation of an individual faculty member will be sought in all tenure and promotion reviews. Faculty members being reviewed for tenure or promotion will submit a list of at least 6 potential evaluators (with contact information) and a maximum 3-page summary of their research agenda to the Dean by June 1. Potential evaluators suggested should be persons at "arm’s length" from the candidate and not be close personal or professional colleagues such as co-authors or dissertation advisors. The Committee shall suggest other potential reviewers. The Dean and the Committee Chair/Co-Chairs shall select the external evaluators of whom to request evaluations.
5. The Dean’s Office staff will coordinate the collection of external letters of evaluation in consultation with the Committee Chair/Co-Chairs. At least four external review letters that address the faculty member's scholarly contributions to a field of study must be received by October 1st. The applicant will create a narrative, no longer than three pages, that outlines their research agenda, and will select five to eight representative scholarly works to be made available to the external evaluators.
6. The resulting external review letters will be considered but will not be the sole criterion in rendering a tenure and/or promotion decision. Unsolicited letters will not be considered.
7. Reviews of faculty for promotion to full professor will be conducted by five full professors. (Refer to I.A. for selection of committee members.)
8. The Committee’s final recommendations will be accompanied by a statement of specific reasons for its actions. Three copies of the Committee's recommendations will be made; one copy to be forwarded to the faculty member; one to the Dean of the School of Education; and one retained in the files of the Committee that are kept in the Dean's Office. When the Committee submits a report recommending improvement in performance, the following guidelines and procedures will apply:
   
   a. When a review finds that the faculty member’s performance record is unsatisfactory, the individual in consultation with the Faculty Evaluation Committee will develop a performance plan to address any area(s) of deficiency. A plan acceptable to the Dean must be completed within one month of notification of the Committee’s finding of unsatisfactory performance. The Faculty Evaluation Committee shall advise the Dean and the faculty member if the principal parties cannot mutually agree on a plan.
   
   b. The performance plan must include measurable indicators of progress in each area of unsatisfactory performance to be assessed by the Dean on an annual basis in conjunction with the merit evaluation. The plan must stipulate specific and appropriate measures that will be used to assess performance in any area(s) of deficiency and a time-line not to exceed 24 months to make the specified improvements in performance.
   
   c. The Faculty Evaluation Committee will assess progress made in implementing the performance plan by April 15 of the year following the evaluation, according to the College Policy (Section 3e).
   
   
9. Permanent Committee records will be retained according to the following guidelines:
   
   a. The Chair/Co-Chairs will store the permanent Committee records in the Dean’s Office.
   
   b. The current Committee Chair/Co-Chairs will have access to the permanent Committee records stored in the Dean’s Office. This information will be shared with the Committee as appropriate.
   
   c. The permanent Committee records shall include:
       i. A copy of the evaluation report forwarded to the Dean of the School of Education.
      ii. When appropriate, a copy of each separate report forwarded to faculty members detailing       areas of suggested improvement.
      iii. When appropriate, a copy of individual faculty written responses to the Committee.
      iv. Copies of responses from the Committee to the faculty member.
   
   d. Committee records for each individual faculty member will be retained during his or her tenure on the Faculty.
   
   e. Upon completion of the Committee's work, copies of all original data submitted by the faculty member will be retained in the permanent files of the Committee. Additionally, individual members of the Committee will destroy all personal copies of drafts or reports generated by the Committee or Committee members.

B. SPECIFIC PROCEDURES

1. The interim evaluation of tenure-eligible faculty will proceed as follows:5
   
   a. Each member of the Faculty scheduled for an evaluation during a given year shall present credentials to the Evaluation Committee by January 15.
   
   b. Once materials are submitted to the Committee for review, they may only be changed at the request of the Committee.
   
   c. Faculty may, at their discretion, appear before the Committee in order to explain or defend submitted credentials prior to Committee decision-making.
   
   d. No later than March 1, the Faculty Evaluation Committee will have completed its review and notified the faculty member undergoing evaluation. By majority vote, the Committee will recommend one of the following: (a) retention or (b) non-retention.
   
   e. Upon receipt of the Committee's recommendation, and prior to notification to the Dean, the faculty member will be afforded five working days to respond to the Committee.
   
   f. No later than March 10, the Faculty Evaluation Committee will forward its recommendation and any written response from the applicant to the Dean.
   
   g. The Dean of the School of Education will develop a recommendation which may reference the Committee's report. The Dean’s recommendation must be given to the faculty member in writing by March 20th. The faculty member will have five working days to respond to the Dean's recommendation before it is sent on to the Provost. The Dean's recommendation and comments, along with the Committee’s recommendation, will then be sent to the Provost. The faculty member may require that his/her response to the Dean and/or the Committee’s report be included with materials forwarded to the Provost.
2. The evaluation for tenure with or without promotion to Associate Professor, and post-tenure evaluation for promotion to Professor will proceed as follows:
   
   a. Each member of the Faculty scheduled for an evaluation during a given year shall present materials to the Faculty Evaluation Committee by September 15.
   
   b. Once materials are submitted to the Committee, they may only be changed at the request of the Committee.
   
   c. Faculty may, at their discretion, appear before the Committee in order to explain or defend submitted credentials prior to Committee decision-making.
   
   d. No later than November 1, the Faculty Evaluation Committee will have completed its review and notified the faculty member undergoing evaluation. By majority vote, the Committee will recommend one of the following:
      i. For evaluations for tenure, with or without promotion: tenure and promotion, tenure, no tenure and no promotion, no tenure.
      ii. For evaluations for promotion to the rank of Professor: promotion or non-promotion.
   
   d. Upon receipt of the Committee's recommendation, and prior to notification to the Dean, the faculty member will be afforded five working days to respond to the Committee.
   
   e. No later than November 10, the Faculty Evaluation Committee will forward its recommendation and any written response from the applicant to the Dean.
   
   f. The Dean of the School of Education will develop a recommendation that may reference the Committee's report. The Dean’s recommendation must be given to the faculty member in writing by November 20th. The faculty member will have five working days to respond to the Dean's recommendation before it is sent on to the Provost. The Dean's recommendation and comments, along with the Committee recommendation, will then be sent to the Provost. The faculty member may require that his/her response to the Dean and/or the Committee’s report be included with materials forwarded to the Provost.

V. ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES FOR POST-TENURE REVIEWS

1. A post-tenure review will be triggered by annual merit evaluations whenever there are judgments of unsatisfactory performance in teaching or scholarship twice within a three-year period. Post-tenure reviews, triggered by unsatisfactory annual merit evaluations, must be completed by the Faculty Evaluation Committee within two months of the request from the Dean for an unscheduled review.
2. A finding of overall unsatisfactory performance may result from a post-tenure review when there is a judgment of unsatisfactory performance in teaching or scholarship.
3. When a post-tenure review finds that the faculty member’s performance record is unsatisfactory, the individual in consultation with the Faculty Evaluation Committee will develop a performance plan to address any area(s) of deficiency. A plan acceptable to the Dean must be completed within one month of notification of the Committee’s finding of unsatisfactory performance. The Faculty Evaluation Committee shall advise the Dean and the faculty member if the principal parties cannot mutually agree on a plan.
4. The performance plan must include measurable indicators of progress in each area of unsatisfactory performance to be assessed by the Dean on an annual basis in conjunction with the merit evaluation. The plan must stipulate specific and appropriate measures that will be used to assess performance in any area(s) of deficiency and a time-line not to exceed 24 months to make the specified improvements in performance.
5. The Faculty Evaluation Committee will assess progress made in implementing the performance plan by April 15 of the year following the triggering merit evaluation, according to the College Policy (Section 3e).
6. The College policy on post-tenure review (Section 3) specifies punitive action if overall performance continues to be unsatisfactory. Such action may include suspension or a finding of adequate cause for termination as delineated in the current Faculty Handbook. The procedural standards for termination of the appointment of a tenured faculty member for reasons of incompetence, neglect of duty, or misconduct are set out in the most recent version of the Faculty Handbook.

VI. THE CRITERIA AND THEIR DOCUMENTATION

The Faculty Evaluation Committee shall recognize the complexity and diversity of role and responsibility as it evaluates faculty members for promotion, retention and tenure. To facilitate recognition of such diversity, the individual faculty member may provide written justification for emphasizing certain criteria. Profiles addressing the criteria for teaching, scholarship, and service can be found in Appendices A-C.

VII. AMENDMENTS TO THESE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

A majority vote of all eligible faculty (as defined in Article I, section 1 of the Bylaws of the Faculty of the School of Education) will be required to amend these policies and procedures.

 

Revised policy approved by the Faculty of the School of Education on April 30, 2008.
Revised policy approved by the Faculty of the School of Education on April 26, 2017.
Revised policy approved by the Faculty of the School of Education on September 27, 2017.
Revised policy approved by the Personnel Policy Committee on March 29, 2018.

 

APPENDIX A: Profiles for Teaching

Criteria for Tenure with or without Promotion:

1. The Philosophy of Teaching Statement provides evidence of a coherent philosophy of teaching as well as a thoughtful and reflective approach to the candidate’s teaching duties.
2. The statement of teaching, supervising, and advising responsibilities documents that the candidate has adequately fulfilled the expectations of his or her position in terms of assigned teaching responsibilities and advisement.
3. Original copies of end-of-course evaluations for all courses taught.
4. Other Teaching Evidence
   1. Evidence of Content Expertise
       a. Relevant training and professional experiences
       b. Expertise supported by current field-based experiences
   2. Evidence of Course Planning and Instructional Design
       a. Clear objectives and expectations
       b. Instructional techniques and student assignments aligned with objectives and content/skills
       c. Attention to professional standards (where applicable)
   3. Evidence of Quality in Instructional Delivery
       a. Course ratings consistently at or above the School of Education criteria, reflecting quality instructional delivery
       b. Documentation of the use of assessment feedback for instructional improvement
       c. At least one other method of evaluation (e.g., peer evaluation; midcourse feedback)
   4. Indicators of Assessment and Evaluation Practices
       a. Evidence of rigorous assessments of course objectives
       b. Evidence of student learning or outcomes
   5. Description of Other Teaching Responsibilities
       a. Evidence of quality performance in other teaching responsibilities, such as thesis/dissertation direction, independent study, field supervision, and program advising
5. Self-Evaluation of Teaching
6. Future Plans for Teaching

Criteria for Promotion to Full Professor:

1. Continues to satisfactorily meet criteria for attaining tenure
2. Significant contributions to program development and improvements 

 

APPENDIX B: Profiles for Scholarship

Criteria for Tenure with or without Promotion:

1. A focused research agenda closely related to the candidate’s field or discipline
2. A record of quality publications that typically includes a minimum of eight refereed journal articles or a combination of scholarly works that must include refereed journal articles in addition to other productivity such as books, published curriculum materials, technical reports, monographs, or submitted grant or contract proposal(s)
3. A record of presentations at state, multi-state, national or international conferences
4. Evidence of a combination of individual scholarship and collaborative work, with explanation of the candidate’s role in collaborative work
5. Evidence of contributions to the field as supported by independent external review
6. Self-evaluation of scholarship
7. Future plans for scholarship

Criteria for Promotion to Full Professor:

1. Continued focused research agenda consistent with the productivity level required at tenure
2. A substantial contribution that advances theory or practice in the candidate’s field, such as a combination of scholarly works including books, refereed journal articles, published curriculum materials, technical reports, monographs, and/or funded grant or contract proposal(s)
3. A consistent record of presentations at national or international conferences
4. An externally funded project, editor of a journal, major research award or other comparable accomplishment
5. Self-evaluation of scholarship
6. Future plans in scholarship

 

APPENDIX C: Profiles for Service

Criteria for Tenure with or without Promotion:

1. Internal Service
   a. Contributions to a program and department
   b. Service on at least one School of Education Committee or one University Committee (standing or ad hoc) per year
2. External Service
   a. Evidence of consistent service to the field, including active participation in relevant professional associations; consultation to provide training/ technical assistance to K-12 schools, IHEs, or other educational, community, and government agencies
   b. Presentations at local and regional (smaller than state-level) conferences
   c. Administration of an outreach grant or significant partnership project, and the like.
3. Self-Evaluation of Service
4. Future Plans for Service

Criteria for Promotion to Full Professor:

1. Internal Service
   a. Continues to satisfactorily meet criteria for attaining tenure
   b. Consistent service within the School of Education
   c. Consistent service to the university for the period under review
   d. Evidence of officially designated leadership at two or more levels--program, department, school, or university-- during the time since promotion to associate professor, such as chairing governance committees, leading program development efforts, etc.
   Additional evidence to be considered:
   e. Mentoring of a junior faculty member
2. External Service
   a. Continues to satisfactorily meet criteria for attaining tenure
   b. Significant contributions to the field, such as officially designated leadership roles in professional associations; receipt of a major service award, uncompensated, documented leadership of a sizable project in collaboration with a school district or IHE, etc.
3. Self-Evaluation of Service
4. Future Plans for Service