Kenyon Home » Human Resources » Faculty Handbook » 2.4 FACULTY EVALUATION

Kenyon CollegeHuman Resources

2.4 FACULTY EVALUATION

In order to assure equity in evaluating members of the faculty being reviewed in consideration of reappointment, promotion in rank, and salary adjustments, the faculty, in cooperation with the administration and the Board of Trustees, has adopted the following Evaluation Criteria and Procedures. In its efforts to promote and maintain the highest possible standards among the faculty, the College will be guided solely by them in the evaluation of faculty members. In order to preserve their authority, a Grievance Procedure has been established (See section 2.5.)

(approved May 1995, amended 2004)

The Tenure and Promotion Committee serves as an evaluating body for the pretenure review, tenure, and promotion. Its responsibility is to ensure that the review process is fair and that the final recommendation is based on sound documentation.

The Tenure and Promotion Committee shall not operate as a means of reallocating College positions or other resources. Each review stands on its own merits and will not be affected by other reviews.

The Committee's functions include reading dossiers, as gathered by the Associate Provost in accordance with faculty legislation, and making a recommendation to the President. That recommendation is based strictly on the three evaluation criteria listed in the Faculty Handbook. (See section 2.4.2.) The Tenure and Promotion Committee's conclusions should be substantiated by direct reference to material in those dossiers. Other mechanisms of faculty evaluation are unchanged by this legislation.

At the conclusion of its deliberations, the Tenure and Promotion Committee makes a written recommendation to the President for or against pretenure, tenure, or promotion. The recommendation will reflect both majority and minority opinions as part of its rationale. The vote is also reported, without individual attribution. Copies of the recommendation are sent to the President and the Provost. After the Board of Trustees has made its decision, a copy of the TPC letter is sent to the faculty member under review.

The procedures and recommendation of the Tenure and Promotion Committee are separate from the administrative role of the Provost. The Provost makes a separate recommendation to the President.

Members: Seven tenured faculty, including one from each academic division. The Provost is a non-voting member whose primary role is to clarify issues found in the dossier. Members are elected according to the procedures for standing committees, but for three-year staggered terms. The Executive Committee will offer a slate of nominees with separate votes for each divisional representative and for the three members at large. Membership will include at least two men and two women and normally no more than one person from any department. Committee members will abstain as best they can from writing letters of evaluation during their tenure. The chair of the committee shall be a full professor, selected by the committee, who has had at least one year of prior experience on TPC.

Members recuse themselves when the committee is evaluating a colleague from their own department or a close relative. When this proviso affects the chair, another member of the committee serves as acting chair for that single deliberation. If, after recusals, the committee includes no member from the academic division of the faculty member being reviewed, then an eligible faculty member from that division will be appointed by the chair of the committee and the Provost to serve as the divisional representative on the committee for that single deliberation.

It is understood that members of the Tenure and Promotion Committee keep committee deliberations and all information contained in evaluation dossiers strictly confidential.


Back to Top

(amended March 1999)

Kenyon College faculty members are evaluated by reference to three criteria. Teaching Excellence is the sine qua non for retention and advancement at the College. The College expects this excellence to be complemented by achievement in two auxiliary areas. First, it expects its faculty members to practice an ongoing engagement in their scholarly or artistic work. Second, it expects faculty members to display a collegiate citizenship that manifests itself through participation in the life of the College and/or community. Scholarly or Artistic Engagement is valuable because it fosters intellectual liveliness, assures that faculty members remain current with aspects of their fields or disciplines, provides opportunities for collaborative scholarship with students, and promotes the reputation of the College. Collegiate Citizenship is valuable because it is the foundation of successful faculty governance and a source of community vitality.

The following guidelines are proposed to help faculty members make decisions about the use of their time and energies. (See also Section 2.4.5.) The lists which follow each guideline are meant to aid in interpretation of these criteria by providing examples of appropriate activities. The lists are not exclusive.

A. Teaching Excellence: Kenyon faculty members are expected to strive for excellence in teaching. Nothing can extenuate poor teaching. Kenyon College exists to provide effective instruction. The College will not accept mediocrity in its classrooms, laboratories, and studios. Because teaching is the most important criterion for faculty excellence, all items listed in this category are essential.

  1. Scholarly competence and familiarity with current developments in one's field;
  2. Thorough and imaginative course planning and preparation for individual classroom, laboratory, and studio sessions;
  3. Effective lecture presentations, discussion leadership, and tutorial guidance;
  4. Timely, painstaking, and fair review and evaluation of student work;
  5. Availability and effective guidance to students, particularly to those assigned as advisees or enrolled in one's classes.

B. Scholarly or Artistic Engagement: Scholarly or artistic engagement must be ongoing. Projects may change, and the pace of activity associated with them may vary. But because such engagement strengthens teaching, the College expects its faculty members to keep themselves professionally involved in the creative work of their discipline by the regular and disciplined pursuit of knowledge and the development of their skills. While all items in the list are valuable, the first has special importance.

(As a supplement to the following collegiate criteria, each academic department and each interdisciplinary program which holds one or more faculty positions shall prepare guidelines that will indicate how the College standards apply in that particular discipline in regard to the collegiate criteria for scholarly and artistic engagement. These guidelines are to be in accord with the collegiate criteria and are to be submitted to the President and Provost for approval. Where one department contains more than one discipline, the department may submit guidelines for each discipline if it sees fit to do so. All members of the department are at least to be consulted in developing the guidelines. Each department and program will submit its guidelines for review to its outside evaluators.)

  1. Active and effective participation in one's field, through publications, exhibition, or performance;
  2. Active participation in scholarly or artistic discourse, through the presentation of invited lectures, conference papers or posters; or through other active scholarly involvement in conferences; or through the receipt of grants.
  3. Active work with students on artistic, scholarly, or research projects that go beyond regular courses;
  4. Exchange of information, ideas, and techniques with peers.
  5. Acquisition of new skills or the pursuit of secondary fields of scholarly interest.

C. Collegiate Citizenship: Collegiate citizenship cannot be neglected. Participation on the various bodies that sustain the governance of the institution and in the various activities that foster breadth in its cultural life contributes both to the welfare of the College and the welfare of the faculty member.

  1. Leadership in various aspects of College governance;
  2. Membership on committees established by the faculty, a department, or the College;
  3. Attendance at faculty meetings;
  4. Assistance in other important collegiate activities, such as student recruiting and alumni affairs;
  5. Initiation of programs that strengthen the capacity of the College to fulfill its mission;
  6. Involvement in the general life of the College, as evidenced by familiarity with fields and activities other than one's own and attendance at lectures, concerts, and exhibitions;
  7. Contributions to the cultural, intellectual, and residential life of the community.
  8. Writing thorough and useful letters of evaluation.

Back to Top

The President and Trustees determine reappointments to the faculty, changes in appointment status, promotion in rank, and salary decisions based on formal evaluations conducted by the Provost. Informal discussions of a faculty member's performance with colleagues, including chairs, the President, and the Provost, are encouraged but do not have official status. Comments by a chair on the performance of members of a department included in the annual report to the President will be discussed with the faculty member concerned, but are not included in the dossier upon which decisions are based.

When faculty members or administrators are asked to act as evaluators, the Provost will remind them of the Criteria for Evaluation described in section 2.4.2. All evaluators will be asked to indicate in their letters which of the criteria is being addressed, and on what experience or knowledge their evaluation of the member is based.

Letters of Evaluation

Letters of evaluation are not ballots or votes. Each class of evaluators forms judgments based on different kinds of knowledge and experience. The College weighs each evaluation in the light of these differences.

All the information contained in the letters of evaluation will be held in complete confidence by the Associate Provost, the Provost, the President, and the Tenure and Promotion Committee, except as provided in the Grievance Procedure described in section 2.5 or as compelled by legal action.

Department Chairs Under Review

When the member being evaluated is a department chair, the responsibilities assigned to the chair will be assumed by the Provost, or delegated by the Provost to another member of the department.

Merit and the Timing of Reviews

Ordinarily, members on tenure track appointments will normally be evaluated for a pretenure reappointment in the third year and for tenure in the sixth year. The evidence obtained in these evaluations will also be used for promotion and salary decisions. All post-tenure reviews must be scheduled once within the normal seven-year sabbatical. The Promotion Review takes the place of a Faculty Performance Review.

All reviews where merit pay is a possible outcome, including pretenure review, tenure, and promotion, shall count teaching at 55 percent. Scholarship and artistic engagement shall count 30 percent, and college citizenship 15 percent. However, in view of the varying career patterns of individuals throughout their stays at Kenyon, it shall be permissible to increase the scholarship and artistic engagement count to 35 percent or to decrease it to 25 percent and, correspondingly, to increase the college citizenship count to 20 percent or to decrease it to 10 percent, the sum always being 100 percent. The corresponding increases and decreases in the scholarship and citizenship counts must be arranged in advance by agreement with and permission of the Provost.

Only the dossier is to be evaluated and the merit standard is to be strictly adhered to. Merit decisions are to be entirely separate from administrative adjustments and the considerations relevant to them.

For all members undergoing pretenure and faculty performance reviews, the merit pool budgeted each year shall be four percent of the salaries of those faculty up for such reviews. The lowest award possible for these reviews is to be zero, and the highest, two percentage points higher than the pools for these reviews. For all members undergoing tenure and promotion reviews, the merit pool budgeted each year shall be six percent of the salaries of those faculties up for such reviews. The lowest award possible for these reviews is to be zero, and the highest, two percentage points higher than the pool for these reviews.

The Provost will compose a letter conveying the results of all Faculty Performance Reviews. The letter will communicate the outcome of the review in the context of the proportions of weight that are given to teaching, scholarly engagement, and citizenship. Later, at the time of the Contract for Services, the faculty member will receive a letter indicating the percentage increase awarded.

Back to Top

By the first of November in the first semester of service at the College, each new faculty member will organize a mentoring group, normally composed of his or her department chair, a tenured member of the department who shall serve as chair of the mentoring group, and at least one other member of the faculty who need not be a member of the same department or program. The new member should select mentors with whom he or she feels comfortable and who will make a commitment to the process. The new faculty member should inform the Associate Provost of the group's formation and its membership. The mentoring group is responsible for providing regular feedback to the new faculty member in all three areas of evaluation: teaching, scholarship, and citizenship. Persons on the committee should meet occasionally with the member and attend at least two classes each semester. The new member should also initiate contact with mentors informally, finding opportunities to engage in discussions with them about syllabi and pedagogy, professional development and time management, dealing with difficult students, and positioning oneself for future reviews.

At the end of the first academic year, the committee will meet with the member to discuss his or her performance. Summaries of course evaluations from the first semester and a curriculum vita will be available to them. After the meeting, the committee chair will write a Mentoring Progress Report addressed to the member. The report should begin by describing the amount and kind of contacts that have occurred between the member and the mentors. Copies will go to the two other committee members and the Provost, but a copy of the report is not included in the member's pretenure review dossier. The report will be due by June 1.

Mentoring continues in the second year, when mentors should again attend at least two classes each semester and continue to meet informally with the member on a regular basis. At the end of the second year, the member will meet with the mentoring committee, which again has the benefit of seeing course evaluations and a curriculum vita. The purpose of the meeting will be to assess the member's growth and progress, and to advise the member about preparing for the pretenure review. While no written report is required, the committee chair should notify the Associate Provost by June 1 that the meeting has occurred. The Associate Provost will then send the member and the mentors a brief questionnaire to evaluate the mentoring process.

While the formal requirements of mentoring end after the second year, the need for effective mentoring does not. New faculty should therefore seek and cultivate mentors informally at least through the review for tenure.

Back to Top

(See section 2.4.1, The Tenure and Promotion Committee) (amended April 2006, admin adjustment April 2011)

Faculty members serving under a regular tenure track appointment are ordinarily reviewed for reappointment during their third year. This review will evaluate faculty performance in teaching, scholarship, and collegiate citizenship. Expectations will include evidence of excellence in teaching, of scholarly engagement in its formative stages, and of commitment to collegiate service.

The Review Dossier . The Associate Provost is responsible for compiling the dossier of materials upon which the review will be based. The material listed below constitutes the review dossier.

A. A current curriculum vitae and a prospectus (generally five single-spaced pages) written by the member describing past accomplishments and indicating anticipated contributions to the department and the College in the future.

B. The departmental letter. The department chair will convene a meeting to discuss the drafting of a departmental letter. All tenured and tenure-track members, except the member being discussed, will be invited to attend. The purpose of the letter is to provide a departmental overview of the member under review based on the established criteria of evaluation and especially with regard to the department's curriculum, goals, and standards. During the year before the meeting, at least four department members will see the faculty member teach at least once. Department members will also see the summaries of the member's College Form evaluations. At least four members of the department will read the scholarship of the member under review and assess its relevance to the field. This assessment should make explicit its relationship to the scholarly guidelines of the department. Based on the discussion in the meeting, the department chair will draft the letter. It should reflect the opinions of all the participants in the meeting. It may or may not make a specific recommendation. After drafting the letter, the chair will circulate it among the tenured and tenure-track members of the department for their approval and signature.

C. Letters of evaluation. In requesting letters of evaluation, the Associate Provost will include with the written request a copy of the Criteria for Evaluation (see section 2.4.2). For faculty evaluators and evaluators outside the College, the Associate Provost will also include the current curriculum vitae and prospectus provided by the faculty member.

The Associate Provost will request letters from the following groups of persons:

1. Three members of the department. The member will submit a list of four names to the Associate Provost. The Associate Provost will solicit letters from two persons on the list and will select a third evaluator who may or may not be on the member's list. To be complete, a dossier must have three letters from departmental colleagues, each of which addresses all three criteria for evaluation.

2. Two colleagues outside the department, one who writes primarily about scholarly/artistic engagement, and the other who writes primarily about teaching. The member will designate someone to write on either teaching or scholarly/artistic engagement. The Associate Provost will choose a second writer, designating either teaching or scholarly/artistic engagement depending on the member's initial choice. While each evaluator has a primary task, he or she may choose to comment on any of the three criteria by which faculty are evaluated, including collegiate service. Both letters are required before the dossier is complete.

3. Ten students, with mailing and e-mail addresses, chosen by the member. Ten students who have enrolled in courses taught by the member since the last review, selected by the Provost. At least eight letters are required to complete the dossier, at least two of which must be from students selected by the Provost.

D. The Provost's letter of recommendation to the President and Provost's statement sent to the faculty member summarizing the evaluation of their last review, as well as the Tenure and Promotion Committee letter if the last review was either a Tenure or Promotion review.

E. A record, composed by the Provost, summarizing the faculty member's appointments at Kenyon, including academic rank and any previous decisions bearing on reappointment.

F. Course evaluations (College Form, See section 1.1.2) covering the period of the current review.

Other Materials . In addition, it is the responsibility of the faculty member under review to provide to department members and others writing letters of evaluation any other evidence the member thinks relevant, such as self-designed course evaluations, syllabi, publications, published and unpublished reviews of the faculty member's work or performance, and letters from individuals outside the College with relevant special knowledge. Usually this material is placed on course reserve in the Library by October 15. Faculty members may make other arrangements as long as they clearly communicate these arrangements to their evaluators. Note that these materials are not part of the review dossier.

The Procedure . Before September 1, the Associate Provost will meet with those eligible for a pretenure review and with their department chairs to discuss the procedure. If the faculty member wishes to postpone the review, he or she should inform the Associate Provost in writing before October 1.

Vitae, prospectus and names of evaluators are due in the Associate Provost's office by October 15. Assuming all lists of potential evaluators have been provided by October 15, the Associate Provost will mail all requests for evaluations before November 1.

By December 15, the Associate Provost will inform the department chair which materials and letters from the evaluators chosen by the member have not been received. It is the responsibility of the Associate Provost and the chair to take steps to ensure that the required minimum number of written evaluations from students and faculty members has been received by the Associate Provost by January 2. The faculty member is not responsible for securing letters.

The review dossier should be complete by January 2. If the Provost or the Tenure and Promotion Committee judges the dossier to be an inadequate basis for review, additional information will be sought. The Provost may use whatever sources are necessary to collect this information, but all of it must be represented in the dossier in writing. In the case of oral interviews, the Provost will place in the dossier a written summary of the interview signed by the interviewee.

The Tenure and Promotion Committee will review the dossier and at the conclusion of its deliberations will make a written recommendation to the President for or against reappointment. The recommendation will reflect both majority and minority opinions as part of its rationale. The vote is also reported, without individual attribution. A copy of the recommendation is sent to the Provost.

The faculty member under review will receive a letter of intent in March in place of a Contract for Services. Any changes in the terms of the faculty member's appointment resulting from the review will be reflected in the Contract for Services to be issued at the end of the review process.

By April 15, the Provost will submit the member's dossier and a written recommendation concerning appointment and salary to the President for decision.

In the process of reviewing the dossier, the President may consult with the Provost, the department chair, the chair of the Tenure and Promotion Committee and the faculty member concerning information contained in the dossier, as necessary. The President may also request the Provost to seek additional information. Any additional testimony or information supplied by the Provost at the President's request must be represented in the dossier in writing.

The Committee on Faculty and Curriculum of the Board of Trustees deliberates about the recommendation at its meeting on campus in late April. Shortly after that meeting, the member can expect a telephone call from the Provost with an oral report on the decision.

The President's decision will be given in writing to the faculty member and the department chair before the end of the first week in May. At that time, the member also receives a copy of the recommendation letter from the Tenure and Promotion Committee. Salary issues will be reflected in the Contract for Services sent to the faculty member in May. The letter from the President constitutes formal notice of reappointment, but it is binding upon both parties only after the Contract for Services has been duly executed.

Back to Top

Ordinarily in the sixth year of service, or earlier in the case of prior experience, faculty members become eligible to stand for review for Tenure (Appointment Without Limit).

Tenure requires demonstrated excellence in the faculty member's discipline and promise of future contributions to the College of a high order. The granting of tenure constitutes the most serious commitment the College makes to a faculty member and must be based on the expectation that the faculty member will continue a high level of performance throughout the years of service. The evaluation process thus draws upon the appraisals of more persons than in the previous review. Within that broader range of opinion, evaluations written by those in the member's department are of major importance.

The Review Dossier . The Associate Provost is responsible for compiling the dossier of materials upon which the review will be based. The material listed below constitutes the review dossier.

A. A current curriculum vitae and a prospectus (generally five single-spaced pages) written by the member describing past accomplishments and indicating anticipated contributions to the department and the College in the future.

B. The departmental letter. The department chair will convene a meeting to discuss the drafting of a departmental letter. All tenured and tenure-track members, except the member being discussed, will be invited to attend. The purpose of the letter is to provide a departmental overview of the member under review, based on the established criteria of evaluation and especially with regard to the department's curriculum, goals, and standards. During the year before the meeting, at least four department members will see the faculty member teach at least once. Department members will also see the summaries of the member's College Form evaluations. At least four members of the department will read the scholarship of the member under review and assess its relevance to the field. This assessment should make explicit its relationship to the scholarly guidelines of the department. Based on the discussion in the meeting, the department chair will draft the letter. It should reflect the opinions of all the participants in the meeting. It may or may not make a specific recommendation. After drafting the letter, the chair will circulate it among the tenured and tenure-track members of the department for their approval and signature.

C. Letters of evaluation. In requesting letters of evaluation, the Associate Provost will include with the written request a copy of the Criteria for Evaluation (see section 2.4.2) as well as the current curriculum vitae and prospectus provided by the faculty member. The Associate Provost will request letters from the following groups of persons:

1. Three members of the department. The member will submit a list of four names to the Associate Provost. The Associate Provost will solicit letters from two persons on the list and will select a third evaluator who may or may not be on the list. To be complete, a dossier must have three letters from departmental colleagues, each of which addresses all three criteria for evaluation.

2. Two colleagues outside the department, one who writes primarily about scholarly/artistic engagement, and the other who writes primarily about teaching. The member will designate someone to write on either teaching or scholarly/artistic engagement. The Associate Provost will choose a second writer, designating either teaching or scholarly/artistic engagement depending on the member's initial choice. While each evaluator has a primary task, he or she may choose to comment on any of the three criteria by which faculty are evaluated, including collegiate service. Both letters are required before the dossier is complete.

3. Ten students, with mailing and e-mail addresses, chosen by the member. Ten students who have enrolled in courses taught by the member since the last review, selected by the Provost. At least eight letters are required to complete the dossier, at least two of which must be from the students selected by the Provost.

4. Three evaluators from outside the College. The member submits five names and addresses, along with a rationale for each selection. The rationale should provide a brief description of the expertise of the external reviewers, and should explain the nature and extent of the member's relationship with them, so that TPC members will be aware of this context when reading the external evaluations of scholarly/artistic engagement. The Associate Provost selects three outside evaluators from whom to solicit letters. Three letters are required to complete the dossier.

D. The Provost's letter of recommendation to the President and Provost's statement sent to the faculty member summarizing the evaluation of their last review, as well as the Tenure and Promotion Committee letter if the last review was either a Tenure or Promotion review.

E. A record, composed by the Provost, summarizing the faculty member's appointments at Kenyon, including academic rank and any previous decisions bearing on reappointment.

F. Course evaluations (College Form, See section 1.1.2) covering the period of the current review.

Other Materials . In addition, it is the responsibility of the faculty member under review to provide to department members and others writing letters of evaluation any other evidence the member thinks relevant, such as self-designed course evaluations, syllabi, publications, published and unpublished reviews of the faculty member's work or performance, and letters from individuals outside the College with relevant special knowledge. Usually this material is placed on course reserve in the Library by September 15. Faculty members may make other arrangements as long as they clearly communicate these arrangements to their evaluators. Note that these materials are not part of the review dossier.

The Procedure . In May preceding the review, the Associate Provost will meet with those eligible to be reviewed for tenure and their department chairs to discuss the procedure. If the faculty member wishes to postpone the review, he or she should inform the Associate Provost in writing before September 1.

Vitae, prospectus and names of evaluators are due in the Associate Provost's office by September 1. The member should also supply three copies of a representative sample of scholarly or artistic work to be sent to the outside evaluators. Assuming all lists of potential evaluators have been provided by September 1, the Associate Provost will mail all requests for evaluations by September 15.

By October 15, the Associate Provost will inform the department chair which materials and letters from the evaluators chosen by the member have not been received. It is the responsibility of the Associate Provost and the chair to take steps to ensure that the required minimum number of written evaluations from students, faculty members, and outside evaluators has been received by the Associate Provost by November 1. The faculty member is not responsible for securing letters.

The review dossier should be complete by November 1. If the Provost or the Tenure and Promotion Committee judges the dossier to be an inadequate basis for review, additional information will be sought. The Provost may use whatever sources are necessary to collect this information, but all of it must be represented in the dossier in writing. In the case of oral interviews, the Provost will place in the dossier a written summary of the interview signed by the interviewee.

The Tenure and Promotion Committee will review the dossier and at the conclusion of its deliberations will make a written recommendation to the President for or against reappointment. The recommendation will reflect both majority and minority opinions as part of its rationale. The vote is also reported, without individual attribution. A copy of the recommendation is sent to the Provost.

The faculty member under review will receive a letter of intent in March in place of a Contract for Services. Any changes in the terms of the faculty member's appointment resulting from the review will be reflected in the Contract for Services to be issued at the end of the review process.

By April 15, the Provost will submit the member's dossier and a written recommendation concerning appointment, promotion, and salary, to the President for decision.

In the process of reviewing the dossier, the President may consult with the Provost, the department chair, the chair of the Tenure and Promotion Committee and the faculty member concerning information contained in the dossier, as necessary. The President may also request the Provost to seek additional information. Any additional testimony or information supplied by the Provost at the President's request must be represented in the dossier in writing.

The Committee on Faculty and Curriculum of the Board of Trustees deliberates about the recommendation at its meeting on campus in late April. Shortly after that meeting, the member can expect a telephone call from the Provost with an oral report on the decision.

The President's decision will be given in writing to the faculty member and the department chair before the end of May. At that time, the member also receives a copy of the recommendation letter from the Tenure and Promotion Committee. In the event of reappointment, the President's letter will also refer to matters of promotion. Salary issues will be reflected in the Contract for Services sent to the faculty member in May. The letter from the President constitutes formal notice of reappointment, but it is binding upon both parties only after the Contract for Services has been duly executed.

Back to Top

Performance reviews of tenured faculty members serve three purposes. The evaluation provides the grounds for adjustments of salary. Regular reviews also identify strengths and weaknesses in a faculty member's performance that can guide the faculty member in making important professional decisions. Finally, the College has an interest in assessing the continuing excellence of the faculty member's teaching, research and service. Evaluation will be based on those three criteria and in the proportions stated under Criteria for Evaluation (See section 2.4.2).

Performance reviews take place once during each of the seven-year intervals related to the member's eligibility for sabbatical leaves, normally in the fifth year of that cycle. Anticipated faculty performance reviews should be discussed, at the initiation of the faculty member or the Associate Provost, six months prior to the beginning of the review process.

The review for promotion to Full Professor replaces the FPR in that sabbatical cycle.

The Review Dossier . The material listed below constitutes the review dossier and is the only material viewed by the Provost.

A. A current curriculum vitae and prospectus generally five single-spaced pages written by the member describing accomplishments in teaching, scholarship, and service since the most recent review, and indicating anticipated contributions to the department and the College in the future. The prospectus should include information helpful for an assessment of excellence in teaching, research, and service, and should also discuss plans for the next sabbatical leave.

B. The Provost's letter of recommendation to the President and Provost's statement sent to the faculty member summarizing the evaluation of their last review, as well as the Tenure and Promotion Committee letter if the last review was either a Tenure or Promotion review.

C. Four letters of evaluation--three from colleagues in the member's department and one from a colleague outside the department. Three of the letters should address all three criteria of evaluation; the fourth, while dealing with all three criteria, should focus in particular on scholarly or artistic engagement. In order to provide a specific evaluation of excellence in teaching and scholarly or artistic engagement, all four faculty evaluators are expected to see the faculty member teach at least once in the year of the review and are also expected to read the scholarship or view or read the creative work of the member under review and assess its relevance to the field.

D. Ten students, with mailing and e-mail addresses, chosen by the member. Ten students who have enrolled in courses taught by the member since the last review, selected by the Provost. At least eight letters are required to complete the dossier, at least two of which must be from students selected by the Provost.

E. Summaries of the College Form (See section 1.1.2) covering the period of the current review.

Other Materials . In addition, it is the responsibility of the faculty member under review to provide to department members and others writing letters of evaluation any other evidence the member thinks relevant, such as self-designed course evaluations, syllabi, publications, published or unpublished reviews of the faculty member's work or performance, and letters from individuals outside the College with relevant special knowledge. Usually this material is placed on course reserve in the Library by October 15. Faculty members may make other arrangements as long as they clearly communicate these arrangements to their evaluators. Note that these materials are not part of the review dossier.

The Procedure . The Associate Provost meets with those undergoing an FPR in August of the school year in which the review is scheduled to discuss and clarify the procedures.

By October 1, the member will submit the curriculum vitae The member may (but need not) choose the evaluator whose letter will focus on scholarly or artistic engagement, and may (but need not) choose the evaluator outside the department. The Associate Provost picks the other two evaluators. Letters from three colleagues inside the department and one outside the department are needed to complete the dossier. Copies of the faculty member's curriculum vitae, prospectus, and the criteria of evaluation will be sent to evaluators by October 15. The Provost's office supplies the other materials in the dossier.

The review dossier should be complete by December 1. If the Provost judges the dossier to be an inadequate basis for review, additional information will be sought. Any additional information must be represented in the dossier in writing. The provost might request, for example, that letters of evaluation deemed inadequate be rewritten. In all cases of requests for additional information, the chair of the reviewee's department will be consulted.

By April 15 the Provost will provide the faculty member with a report of the evaluation, normally between 1 - 2 single-spaced pages.

The faculty member will receive a letter of intent in March indicating the standard salary increase. Any merit adjustments of the faculty member's salary based on the performance review will be reflected in a letter sent before the Contract for Services is issued in May. The review dossier and the final report become a permanent part of the faculty member's personal file maintained in the Provost's office.

If the member being reviewed refuses to cooperate in the review (e.g., by failing to submit lists or to prepare a prospectus), the review shall nevertheless proceed, with the Provost compensating for the omissions where possible and including a statement in the review dossier and the final report that explains omissions and procedural adjustments.

Back to Top

Full Professor represents the highest faculty rank the College confers. It rests upon demonstrated excellence in teaching, scholarly or artistic engagement, and citizenship sustained over a substantial period of time and the achievement of recognition both within the College and the profession as a whole. Because of the seriousness of the College commitment involved, promotion to Professor is similar in its importance to the awarding of tenure.

Those faculty whose accomplishments are truly exceptional, both within the College and within their scholarly or artistic fields, may stand for promotion to Full Professor in the seventh year in rank as Associate Professor. Except in unusual circumstances, associate professors who sustain excellence in teaching, scholarship, and citizenship over a substantial period of time can expect to stand for promotion by their twelfth year in rank as Associate Professor.

The Review Dossier . The Associate Provost is responsible for compiling the dossier of materials upon which the review will be based. The material listed below constitutes the review dossier.

A. A current curriculum vitae and a prospectus (generally five single-spaced pages) written by the member describing past accomplishments and indicating anticipated contributions to the department and the College in the future.

B. The departmental letter. The department chair will convene a meeting to discuss the drafting of a departmental letter. All tenured and tenure-track members, except the member being discussed, will be invited to attend. The purpose of the letter is to provide a departmental overview of the member under review, based on the established criteria of evaluation and especially with regard to the department's curriculum, goals, and standards. During the year before the meeting, at least four department members will see the faculty member teach at least once. Department members will also see the summaries of the member's College Form evaluations. At least four members of the department will read the scholarship of the member under review and assess its relevance to the field. This assessment should make explicit its relationship to the scholarly guidelines of the department. Based on the discussion in the meeting, the department chair will draft the letter. It should reflect the opinions of all the participants in the meeting. It may or may not make a specific recommendation. After drafting the letter, the chair will circulate it among the tenured and tenure-track members of the department for their approval and signature.

C. Letters of evaluation. In requesting letters of evaluation, the Associate Provost will include with the written request a copy of the Criteria for Evaluation (see section 2.4.2) as well as the current curriculum vitae and prospectus provided by the faculty member. The Associate Provost will request letters from the following groups of persons:

1. Three members of the department. The member will submit a list of four names to the Associate Provost. The Associate Provost will solicit letters from two persons on the list and will select a third evaluator who may or may not be on the list. To be complete, a dossier must have three letters from departmental colleagues, each of which addresses the three criteria for evaluation.

2. Two colleagues outside the department, one who writes primarily about scholarly/artistic engagement, and the other who writes primarily about teaching. The member will designate someone to write on either teaching or scholarly/artistic engagement. The Associate Provost will choose the second writer, designating either teaching or scholarly/artistic engagement depending on the member's initial choice. While each evaluator has a primary task, he or she may choose to comment on any of the three criteria by which faculty are evaluated, including collegiate service. Both letters are required before the dossier is complete.

3. Ten students, with mailing and e-mail addresses, chosen by the member. Ten students who have enrolled in courses taught by the member since the last review, selected by the Provost. At least eight letters are required to complete the dossier, at least two of which must be from students selected by the Provost.

4. Three evaluators from outside the College. The member submits five names and addresses, along with a rationale for each selection. The rational should provide a brief description of the expertise of the external reviewers, and should explain the nature and extent of the member's relationship with them, so that TPC members will be aware of this context when reading the external evaluations of scholarly/artistic engagement. The Associate Provost selects three outside evaluators from whom to solicit letters. Three letters are required to complete the dossier.

D. The Provost's letter of recommendation to the President and Provost's statement sent to the faculty member summarizing the evaluation of their last review, as well as the Tenure and Promotion Committee letter if the last review was either a Tenure or Promotion review.

E. A record, composed by the Provost, summarizing the faculty member's appointments at Kenyon, including academic rank and any previous decisions bearing on reappointment and promotion.

F. Course evaluations (College Form, See section 1.1.2) covering the period of the current review.

Other Materials . In addition, it is the responsibility of the faculty member under review to provide to department members and others writing letters of evaluation any other evidence the member thinks relevant, such as self-designed course evaluations, syllabi, publications, published and unpublished reviews of the faculty member's work or performance, and letters from individuals outside the College with relevant special knowledge. Usually this material is placed on course reserve in the Library by March 15. Faculty members may make other arrangements as long as they clearly communicate these arrangements to their evaluators. Note that these materials are not part of the review dossier.

The Procedure . In January preceding the review, the Associate Provost will meet with those eligible to be reviewed for promotion and their department chairs to discuss the procedure. If the faculty member wishes to postpone the review, he or she should inform the Associate Provost in writing before March 1.

Vitae, prospectus and names of evaluators are due in the Associate Provost's office by March 1. The member should also supply three copies of a representative sample of scholarly or artistic work to be sent to the outside evaluators. Assuming all lists of potential evaluators have been provided by March 1, the Associate Provost will mail all requests for evaluations by March 15.

By May 15, the Associate Provost will inform the department chair which materials and letters from the evaluators chosen by the member have not been received. It is the responsibility of the Associate Provost and the chair to take steps to ensure that the required minimum number of written evaluations from students, faculty members, and outside evaluators has been received by the Associate Provost by June 1. The faculty member is not responsible for securing letters.

The review dossier should be complete by June 1. If the Provost or the Tenure and Promotion Committee judge the dossier to be an inadequate basis for review, additional information will be sought. The Provost may use whatever sources are necessary to collect this information, but all of it must be represented in the dossier in writing. In the case of oral interviews, the Provost will place in the dossier a written summary of the interview signed by the interviewee.

The Tenure and Promotion Committee will review the dossier and at the conclusion of its deliberations will make a written recommendation to the President for or against reappointment. The recommendation will reflect both majority and minority opinions as part of its rationale. The vote is also reported, without individual attribution. A copy of the recommendation is sent to the Provost.

By October 15, the Provost will submit the member's dossier and a written recommendation concerning appointment, promotion, and salary, to the President for decision.

In the process of reviewing the dossier, the President may consult with the Provost, the department chair, the chair of the Tenure and Promotion Committee and the faculty member concerning information contained in the dossier, as necessary. The President may also request the Provost to seek additional information. Any additional testimony or information supplied by the Provost at the President's request must be represented in the dossier in writing.

The Committee on Faculty and Curriculum of the Board of Trustees deliberates about the recommendation at its meeting on campus in late October. Shortly after that meeting, the member can expect a telephone call from the Provost with an oral report on the decision.

The President's decision will be given in writing to the faculty member and the department chair before November 1. Salary issues will be reflected in the Contract for Services sent to the faculty member in May. The letter from the President constitutes formal notice of promotion, but it is binding upon both parties only after the Contract for Services has been duly executed.

Back to Top

Part I: General Principles

A. In general, the evaluation of persons holding interdisciplinary appointments will conform to ordinary practices. The candidate will retain all rights and opportunities afforded all persons being reviewed under the procedures set out in Section 2 of the Faculty Handbook. Further, persons holding interdisciplinary appointments will be evaluated in accordance with the three collegiate criteria of evaluation.

B. Given the unique character of these positions, however, the following two adjustments in the nature and structure of the departmental component of the evaluation process are deemed necessary:

  1. The structure of an "acting department" as detailed in part II, below, will serve the role of the "department" in the evaluation of persons holding interdisciplinary appointments wherever "department" is mentioned in Section 2 of the Faculty Handbook.
  2. The role of an "acting chair" as detailed in part II, below, will serve the role of "chair" wherever "chair" is mentioned in Section 2 of the Faculty Handbook.

Part II: "Departmental" Structure for the Purpose of Evaluation

A. In consultation with the interdisciplinary member under review and relevant faculty members associated with the member under review, the Provost will construct an "acting" department of between six and eight members for the sole purpose of evaluation. As is appropriate to the structure of each program and the specific terms of employment of the member, representative faculty from the following groups will be selected to serve as members of this "acting" department:

Faculty members who:

  1. are currently team teaching or have team taught with the interdisciplinary member under review;
  2. are currently teaching or have taught in the interdisciplinary program under the direction of the faculty member under review;
  3. are currently cross-listing or have cross-listed courses with the interdisciplinary program under the direction of the faculty member under review;
  4. are currently or have been members of a department with which the member has either a professional relationship (beyond the status of adjunct) or common research interests;
  5. are currently or have been members of the Advisory Committee of the interdisciplinary program associated with the member under review.

B. As is the case when a chair of a department is being reviewed, the Provost in consultation with the Interdisciplinary member will select an "acting chair" for the sole purpose of coordinating the evaluation process as set out in Section 2 of the Faculty Handbook .

Back to Top

(approved March 2002, amended 2004)

In general, the evaluation of persons holding joint appointments will conform to ordinary practices. A joint appointment is defined as a formal appointment in two different departments or interdisciplinary programs. The candidate will retain all rights and opportunities afforded all persons being reviewed under the procedures set out in Section 2 of the Faculty Handbook. Further, persons holding joint appointments will be evaluated in accordance with the three collegiate criteria of evaluation.

Given the unique character of these positions, however, the following adjustments in the nature and structure of the departmental component of the evaluation process are deemed necessary:

A. Two departments or interdisciplinary programs have an interest in participating in the review of a person holding a joint appointment. Ordinarily, one department or program will be chosen as the primary department or program and the other as the secondary department or program. The signed agreement specifying the member's responsibilities in each department should be included in all review dossiers.

B. In order to provide each department or program with an appropriate opportunity to represent its view of the performance of the person under review, the composition of the review dossier, except in the case of Faculty Performance Reviews, will be altered in the following ways:

1. Ordinarily, two members of the primary department or program and one member of the secondary department or program will be asked to write letters evaluating the faculty member under review.

2. Ordinarily, two members outside the primary and secondary departments or programs will be asked to submit letters, one will write on teaching the other on scholarly/creative activity.

3. In all other cases where department is mentioned in Section 2 of the Faculty Handbook, the department is comprised of the members of both the primary and secondary departments or programs. More specifically, in the Pretenure, Tenure, and Promotion reviews, all other tenured and tenure-track members of both departments or programs will meet together to discuss the drafting of a departmental letter and the completed letter will be circulated among these same members for their approval and signature.

C. Ordinarily, the chair of the primary department or program will serve as the chair wherever "chair" is mentioned in Section 2 of the Faculty Handbook.

Back to Top

Faculty serving under a Full-Time Visiting Appointment are expected to participate in departmental affairs in a manner similar to those holding regular appointments, though they ordinarily do not serve as faculty advisors to majors or participate in faculty reviews. Beginning in their second year, they may advise first-year students and serve on ad hoc committees or subcommittees, but they are not normally expected to stand for election to standing committees or to serve as advisors to organizations. The criteria for evaluating faculty members (Section 2.4.2) in these appointments are the same as those for faculty in regular appointments.

For reasons of personal or professional development, faculty members serving more than one year under a Visiting Appointment Full-Time may request evaluation at any time after the completion of their first year of service to the College. If faculty members serving under such an appointment are being considered for an extension of their Visiting Appointment, an evaluation should be conducted by the department. The department will conduct subsequent reviews at two-year intervals as needed. Visiting appointments may be extended for two (2) two-year terms, but total years of service to the College under Visiting Appointments may not exceed six years.

The Review Dossier . The Department Chair is responsible for compiling the dossier of materials upon which the review will be based. The material listed below constitutes the review dossier.

A. A current curriculum vitae and a prospectus (generally two to four pages) written by the member describing past accomplishments and indicating anticipated contributions to the department and the College in the future. Copies of the faculty member's curriculum vitae and prospectus must be made available to all department members.

B. Letters of evaluation. In requesting letters of evaluation, the Chair will include with the written request a copy of the Criteria for Evaluation (see section 2.4.2) as well as the current curriculum vitae and prospectus provided by the faculty member. In addition, evaluators shall be reminded of the expectations of visitors stated above. Moreover, the review dossier shall include a letter from the chair of the department, or such other person(s) as may be appropriate, which explains any special circumstances associated with the appointment, such as its being made late in the year or involving assignment to an unusual set of courses.

The Chair will request letters from the following groups of persons:

1. Three members of the department. The member will submit a list of four names to the Chair. The Chair will solicit letters from three persons on the list. To be complete, a dossier must have three letters from departmental colleagues.

2. Ten students with addresses and e-mail contacts, chosen by the member. At least five student letters are required to complete the dossier.

C. Course evaluations (College Form, See section 1.1.2) covering the period of the current review.

Other Materials . In addition, it is the responsibility of the faculty member under review to provide to department members any other evidence the member thinks relevant, such as self-designed course evaluations, syllabi, publications, published or unpublished reviews of the faculty member's work or performance, and letters from individuals outside the College with relevant special knowledge. Usually this material is placed on reserve in the department.

The Procedure . Early in the first semester, the chair will meet with the faculty member to discuss the review procedure. The chair should clarify the date by which the member should provide information for the dossier and the lists of proposed evaluators. When requesting letters of evaluation, the chair should remind evaluators of the criteria of evaluation and specify a due date. The chair should also inform the tenured and tenure track members of the department of the date for the meeting to draft a departmental letter. After the review dossier has been completed, the chair and all members of the department holding regular appointments will meet to evaluate the dossier and formulate a letter that reflects the opinions of all those participating in the meeting.

The Departmental Letter. The department chair will convene a meeting to discuss the drafting of a departmental letter. All tenured and tenure-track members will be invited to attend. The purpose of the letter is to provide a departmental overview of the member under review, based on the established criteria of evaluation and especially with regard to the department's curriculum, goals, and standards. During the year before the meeting, at least three department members will see the faculty member teach at least once. Department members will also see the summaries of the member's College Form evaluations. Based on the discussion in the meeting, the department chair will draft the letter. It should reflect the opinions of all the participants in the meeting. It may or may not make a specific recommendation. After drafting the letter, the chair will circulate it among the tenured and tenure-track members of the department for their approval and signature.

By December 1, the chair will report the outcome of the review in a letter to the Provost. If this is a review for reappointment the letter should make a recommendation. After discussing this recommendation with the chair, the Provost will submit a written recommendation to the President concerning reappointment, as appropriate.

The President's decision will be given in writing to the member and to the chair of the member's Department. The member receives a copy of the departmental letter at this time. Salary issues will be reflected in the Contract for Services sent to the faculty member the following May.

Back to Top

(amended April 2006)

Faculty members in Limited Appointments that are part-time are paid on a per course basis and are not subject to the six-year (consecutive) maximum appointment limit. Faculty on part-time limited appointments are not expected to participate in departmental affairs, advise students, serve on committees (standing or ad hoc), or assume any other responsibilities not directly associated with their class or classes. Because of the special nature of these appointments, teaching excellence is the essential criterion for reappointment. If the member's achievements in scholarship and/or service are noteworthy, however, evaluators and the departmental letter should recognize these as well.

When faculty members serving under a Limited Appointment Part-time are considered for an extension of a multi-year contract, an evaluation will be conducted by the department in the penultimate year of the current contract.

The Review Dossier . The Department Chair is responsible for compiling the dossier of materials upon which the review will be based. The material listed below constitutes the review dossier.

A. A current curriculum vitae and a prospectus (generally two to four pages) written by the member describing past accomplishments and indicating anticipated contributions to the department and the College in the future. Copies of the faculty member's curriculum vitae and prospectus must be made available to all department members.

B. Letters of evaluation. In requesting letters of evaluation, the Chair will include with the written request a reminder of the expectations for persons in part-time limited appointments as stated in the first paragraph of this section.

The Chair will request letters from the following groups of persons:

1. Three members of the department. The member will submit a list of four names to the Chair. The Chair will solicit letters from three persons on the list. To be complete, a dossier must have three letters from departmental colleagues.

2. Five students, with mailing and e-mail addresses, chosen by the member. Five students who have enrolled in courses taught by the member since the last review, selected by the Provost. At least four letters are required to complete the dossier, at least one of which must be from students selected by the Provost.

C. Course evaluations (College Form, See section 1.1.2) covering the period of the current review.

Other Materials . In addition, it is the responsibility of the faculty member under review to provide to department members any other evidence the member thinks relevant, such as self-designed course evaluations, syllabi, publications, published and unpublished reviews of the faculty member's work or performance, and letters from individuals outside the College with relevant special knowledge. Usually this material is placed on reserve in the department.

The Procedure . These reviews may be done anytime during the academic year that is convenient. At least a month before the review, the chair will meet with the faculty member to discuss the review procedure. The chair should specify the date by which the member should provide the chair the information for the dossier and the lists of potential evaluators. When requesting letters of evaluation, the chair should remind evaluators of the teaching criterion that applies to this review as set out in the first paragraph, and should specify a due date. After the review dossier has been completed, the chair and all members of the department holding regular appointments will meet to evaluate the dossier and formulate a letter that reflects the opinions of all the participants in the meeting.

The department chair will convene a meeting to discuss the drafting of a departmental letter. All tenured and tenure-track members will be invited to attend. The purpose of the letter is to provide a departmental overview of the member under review, based on the criterion of teaching excellence and how the member's teaching furthers the department's curriculum, goals, and standards. If the member's scholarship or service have been noteworthy, the discussion should address these criteria as well. During the year before the meeting, at least three department members will see the faculty member teach at least once. Department members will also see the summaries of the member's College Form evaluations. Based on the discussion in the meeting, the department chair will draft the letter. It should reflect the opinions of all the participants in the meeting. It may or may not make a specific recommendation for reappointment. After drafting the letter, the chair will circulate it among the tenured and tenure-track members of the department for their approval and signature.

No more than two weeks after the meeting to formulate the departmental letter, the chair will report the outcome of the review in a letter to the Provost. If this is a review for reappointment, the letter should make a recommendation. After discussing this recommendation with the chair, the Provost will submit a written recommendation to the President concerning reappointment, as appropriate.

The President's decision will be given in writing to the member and to the chair of the member's department. The member receives a copy of the departmental letter at this time. Salary issues will be reflected in the Contract for Services sent to the faculty member the following May.

Back to Top