Jerry and Vickie Moyes College of Education Tenure Document

Last Revised: February, 1990

Revision approved by faculty: December 6, 2001


The purpose of this document is to outline the criteria and the procedures used to evaluate faculty members for tenure in the Jerry and Vickie Moyes College of Education.

The University shall extend tenure to members of the teaching faculty who hold tenure track appointments and to certain others as hereafter defined under eligibility. Appointment to a tenured position is considered permanent and not subject to termination or substantial reduction in status without cause, provided that in all cases the services of an individual in that position continue to be needed, that funds are available to pay for them, and the faculty member exhibits continued satisfactory performance. (PPM 8-11.IIIA)

Granting tenure implies a commitment by the University. Likewise, the faculty member granted tenure makes an equally strong commitment to serve students, colleagues, his discipline and the University in a manner befitting an academic professional. It also raises a strong presumption that those granted tenure are competent in their disciplines and are capable of scholarly contributions. (PPM 8-11.IIIA)

The normal probationary period for a faculty member in a tenure-track appointment is six years, with full reviews scheduled during the third and sixth years. The time in rank for normal promotion from assistant to associate professor is six years. To be promoted from assistant to associate professor one must either have been granted tenure or be granted tenure at the same time as the promotion. A candidate who fails the tenure review process cannot be advanced in rank.

Candidates at the assistant professor rank hired prior to June, 2001 have the option of following the old policy, i.e., probationary period of seven years with full reviews scheduled in the fourth and seventh years, and minimal time in rank for promotion from assistant to associate professor of four years.


To be eligible for a recommendation for tenure, individuals must have an earned doctorate in the discipline of primary responsibility or a closely related discipline. For faculty holding rank as instructor specialist the minimum degree is the masters degree in their discipline of primary responsibility and exceptional professional experience in their field.


In order to assist and guide faculty members preparing for tenure evaluations, the competencies to be considered are in four categories:

Category I: Teaching

Category II: Scholarship and Professional Growth

Category III: Professionally Related Service

Category IV: Professional Ethics

Competencies in categories I, II, and III are rated from unsatisfactory to excellent. In Category IV, the individual must be judged as having adhered to the statement of Professional Ethics. (See PPM 9-3 through 9-8)

Each committee and administrator in the review process will interpret information presented in terms of the 1) expectations of the department or school, 2) specific professional duties expected of the individual, and 3) overall pattern of professional performance.

A written evaluation summary which includes the rationale for the ratings in each category will be submitted. The pattern of ratings must meet or exceed one of the channels described below:

  Category I
Category II
Scholarship & Professional Growth
Category III
Category IV
Professional Ethics
A Excellent Good Satisfactory Yes
B Good Good Good Yes
C Excellent Satisfactory Good Yes
D Good Excellent Satisfactory Yes

The faculty member is responsible to update the professional file prior to the initiation of the review process (See PPM 8-13)


The ratings are to reflect the faculty member's academic career span rather than a single yearís efforts. The ratings mean that the evidence describing the quality and quantity of the individual's professional efforts support a continuing level of performance judged by the evaluators as unsatisfactory, satisfactory, good, or excellent. (See PPM 8-11.IV)

Category I: Teaching

Teaching is defined as the processes or behaviors related to organizing and delivering knowledge; evaluating and facilitating learning; and in general, transmitting content to students.

Documentation of performance in the category of teaching will come from student evaluations, peer review, and other appropriate items of review that could potentially be used to document performance.

1. Student Evaluations. In consultation with the instructor, each department will obtain student evaluations from at least one course taught by the faculty member each semester during the regular academic year, noting the total number enrolled. A department may elect to require that evaluations are done in more than one class per semester. It is expected that the ratings be consistent with college standards in teaching. While the department is responsible for providing summaries of these evaluations to the individual, it is the candidate's responsibility to provide interpretation of the evaluations, and comment on areas of improvement and concern.

2. Teaching Profile. Not later than January 15 of the review year, the individual to be reviewed is required to place in the professional file a brief report which includes: 1) an interpretation of the student evaluation summaries, and 2) a description of the factors affecting his or her instructional performance, e.g. appropriateness of assignments, number of preparations, relation to academic training, etc. (PPM 8-11.IV.E.2)

3. Peer Review. Each formal assessment will include a peer review. The collection of data for the peer review is a continuous process and will extend over the total of the probationary period. The process of peer review is observational and descriptive rather than evaluative in nature, although the report may reach some formative conclusions. The faculty member will be reviewed in each of the following areas:

a. Subject matter mastery: content areas, comprehensiveness of content, currency of content, and objectivity of coverage.

b. Curriculum development: courses' relationship with other courses in a program, course revisions, new courses developed.

c. Course design: instructional goals and objectives, content coverage, appropriateness of assessment methods.

d. Delivery of instruction: methods (lecture, discussion, labs, etc.), skills (speaking, explaining), and aids (handouts, use of technology).

e. Review of instruction: tests, papers, projects, practica, grading practices

f. Professional behavior: advisement and availability to students, instructional administration, e.g., book orders, library reserve, syllabi on file, punctual attendance at class, prompt grade reports, appropriate preparation, etc.

By the beginning of the second year, the peer review committee of at least three faculty members from the department will be appointed by the department chair in consultation with the faculty member to be reviewed. The team will review course syllabi and materials, observe at least five classroom sessions, interview at least five students from the classes observed, and submit a written report on teaching effectiveness to the professional file and the individual not later than December 10 of the evaluation year. The written report of the peer review committee shall include, but not be limited to, a report on the individual's performance in the following areas: content mastery, quality and design of curriculum materials used and developed, evaluation policies and procedures utilized, availability to students, student supervision, maintenance of high academic standards, and personal commitment to improvement. (See PPM 8-11.IV.E.3)

Category II: Scholarship and Professional Growth

Scholarship and Professional Growth is defined as those activities that contribute to the profession and increase the individual's effectiveness as a teacher. While the faculty member is not expected to be equally active in all areas listed below prior to the sixth year review, the individual must submit evidence of significant professional activity. The evidence should indicate ongoing scholarly endeavors. Quality and quantity of effort and the results obtained are the standards of measurement.

a. Refereed publications, such as articles in refereed journals, articles in professional periodicals,

b. Non-refereed publications, such as books, book reviews, published monographs, or other professionally reviewed written material.

c. Professional presentations, such as papers presented at international, national, regional, or state conferences or workshops.

d. Projects, such as funded proposals, action research, teaching innovations and developments, or other long-term professional associations with a public school, a service agency, or other field-based setting appropriate to the individual's discipline. 

e. Professional improvement, such as additional degrees beyond the terminal degree, formal post-graduate study, documentation of additional training, additional or increased expertise through self-study, conference attendance, development of new courses and/or programs, significant modifications to existing courses or programs, etc. (PPM 8-11.IV.F)

Category III: Administrative and/or Professionally Related Service

Professional services is defined as those activities which provide professionally related value to the community, the institution, or professional organizations. An individual is not expected to be equally active in all areas listed below. It should be noted that quality and quantity of effort and the results obtained are the standards of measure. (PPM8-11-G)

a. Leadership positions in professional organizations.

b. Membership in professional organizations.

c. Professionally-related community activities such as speech making, community boards, etc.

d. Committee assignments at the department, college, or university levels

e. Service publications such as newsletters, newspaper and popular magazine articles, and media interviews.

f. Service for professional conferences, workshops and seminars.

g. Administrative assignments within the university.

h. Developmental activities which are service in nature, such as consulting and work experience.

i. Other relevant professional service.

Category IV: Professional Ethics

The University endorses the 1966 "Statement of Professional Ethics" issued by the American Association of University Professors. These statements on ethics are derived from general professional consensus about certain precepts basic to acceptable faculty behavior. The activities of the individual will be evaluated against the statements of professional ethics for the University which are:

Faculty Responsibilities to Self and Profession

Faculty Responsibilities to Students

Faculty Responsibilities to Colleagues

Faculty Responsibilities to the Institution

Faculty Responsibilities to the Community

These responsibilities and standards of behavior are fully elaborated in PPM 9-3 through 9-8.

It is expected that faculty carefully examine and adhere to these standards in every aspect of their professional lives.