Full-Time Faculty Handbook - 06. Faculty Reviews
The New School has five types of faculty reviews: annual performance reviews, which include the annual faculty self-report; reappointment reviews; rank reviews; promotion reviews; and post-promotion reviews. Each review type is described below. Reviews for rank and for promotion are sometimes conducted independently, according to differing criteria, in order to allow the university to acknowledge appropriately the distinctive contributions of renewable-term, tenure-track, tenure, and extended-employment faculty.
Types of Faculty Reviews
1) Annual Performance Review
An evaluation of every faculty member’s performance is generally completed each year. The annual performance review enables deans and program chairs to provide faculty with development support and mentoring, when needed, as well as to assess faculty progress and expectations in preparation for promotion and reappointment reviews. Annual performance reviews are also intended to ensure faculty productivity and the maintenance of high standards. All faculty are required to complete an annual self-report for the dean and upload a recent CV. Included in the report are instructional activities; research, scholarship, and/or creative or professional practice activities (RSCP); service activities; and recognition awarded during the prior year. Reviewed at the college/school level along with teaching evaluations and classroom observations (when available), these annual reports become part of the faculty member’s personnel file.
Failure to meet obligations and standards established by the program, department, school, and college will result in an “unsatisfactory” rating. Written notification of an unsatisfactory rating and the considerations upon which it is based shall be given to the faculty member, with copies to the dean and provost. It should be recognized that a single unsatisfactory annual performance evaluation indicates a serious problem that requires prompt remedial action for all principal full-time faculty and may lead to termination for fixed-term and visiting faculty. Faculty members may respond in writing with a letter to the chair/director for inclusion in the personnel file if they feel the rating is in error. The dean must respond to the faculty member in writing. Two consecutive annual ratings of unsatisfactory performance for faculty with an RTA-OARS appointment, extended-employment, or tenure will result in a post-promotion review and may result in termination.
2) Reappointment Reviews
See Full-Time Faculty Appointments for an overview of tenure-track and renewable-term appointments.
For Tenure-Track Appointments
In the fall semester of the fourth year, probationary tenure-track faculty will stand for a post-probationary review (PPR). Progress toward becoming a dedicated and skilled educator and a dependable colleague—traits required for tenure—are also evaluated in the fourth year of a tenure-track appointment at the PPR. At that point, the department, program, school, and provost will also again be asked to evaluate the quality of the candidate and their work in relation to the mission, priorities, and financial health of the university.
Faculty are reappointed on a tenure track who demonstrate ongoing excellence in their research, scholarship, and/or creative or professional practice (RSCP), as well as ongoing excellence in either pedagogy, teaching, and learning; or service, with the remaining category requiring an ongoing good level of performance.
For Renewable-Term Appointments (RTA)
In the final year of an RTA term, an RTA faculty will be reviewed for reappointment based on performance once ongoing institutional need is confirmed and budget approval given. The job expectations of the faculty can be reconsidered for the renewed contract in light of changes in the field, faculty accomplishments, and/or institutional needs.
Renewable-term appointments are granted for faculty who demonstrate excellence either in pedagogy, teaching, and learning; service; or in research, scholarship, and/or creative or professional practice (RSCP), with a minimum level of good in the remaining two categories. Reappointments will normally be made for periods of three to five years. Renewable-term appointments carry no presumption of continuous employment beyond the specified contract period.
RTA faculty who have been successfully reviewed for a second time (this time with external letters) are designated as RTA-OARS (on annual review status). Once successfully reviewed and reappointed for a second time, the annual faculty review process is the principal means by which performance of RTA faculty is assessed. (Thus, for all principal faculty, annual reviews become the principle means for assessing ongoing performance. While Deans will always have the discretion to call for a full dossier review for an RTA faculty member when there is evidence that overall performance has declined, they are required to do so in the case of two consecutive unsatisfactory annual reviews.)
3) Rank Reviews
See Full-Time Faculty Ranks for descriptions of the ranks outlined below.
Assistant Professor
The rank of assistant professor is generally awarded upon appointment to tenure-track faculty. The same rank can be awarded to RTA faculty who possess a terminal degree in their discipline or have the equivalent in research, scholarship, and/or creative or professional practice (RSCP) and demonstrate excellence in one of the following three categories and a good level of performance in the remaining two: research, scholarship, and/or creative or professional practice as recognized in the relevant field or disciplines; pedagogy, teaching, and learning; service.
Associate Professor
The rank of associate professor is awarded to tenure-track, tenure, RTA, RTA-OARS, and EE faculty for demonstrating excellence in two of the following three categories and a good level of performance in the remaining one: research, scholarship, and/or creative or professional practice that has gained national or international recognition and been recognized for its distinction in the relevant field or discipline; pedagogy, teaching, and learning; service. The rank of associate professor is typically given to tenure-track faculty at the time tenure is awarded. The same rank for RTA faculty is typically given when successfully reviewed for RTA-OARS and generally would not be considered before the seventh year of employment as an RTA faculty member.
Full Professor
Promotion to the rank of full Professor recognizes substantial achievements and growth in stature from the time of promotion to Associate Professor that is recognized nationally, and often internationally, with approval of achievements by colleagues in a particular field of scholarship and/or creative or professional practice and by faculty colleagues. It also may include sustained performance of students whom the candidate has prepared for scholarship and/or creative or professional practice and teaching. Faculty members promoted to full professor are expected to continue to undertake important leadership roles in the university with the understanding, of course, that the balance of effort in research and creative or professional practice, teaching, and university service may shift over the years and may vary from one individual to another. Promotion to the rank of Professor is not accorded solely in recognition of advancing years and acceptable performance of educational and service responsibilities. It is reserved for those faculty who have won the stature of leaders in the academic community and whose presence on the faculty enhances the prestige of the university.
Typically, promotion to full professor takes place no sooner than five years after promotion to associate professor. There are two paths for promotion to full professor and faculty who seek consideration for a full professor review must, as part of their request, indicate the path on which they want to be considered. If approved by the provost (with input from the provost’s full professor advisory committee) the candidate’s dossier would speak explicitly to this choice with a professional narrative and evidence that support it.
- On the pedagogy path, the faculty member will have demonstrated outstanding pedagogical leadership that could include, but is not limited to, the development of new academic programs and/or amendments to existing programs that help determine the future path of The New School; curricular development; and pedagogic innovation. In addition, the faculty member will have maintained a high standard of scholarship, professional or creative practice, advising, and mentoring.
- On the research, scholarship, and/or creative or professional practice (RSCP) path, the faculty member will have continued to produce substantial work recognized for its distinction in the relevant field or discipline(s) (this can include earlier work that has demonstratively gained in significance since prior promotion) and will have maintained a high standard of pedagogy, teaching, and learning; advising, and mentoring.
4) Promotion Reviews
See Full-Time Faculty Appointments for an overview of extended-employment and tenure appointments.
For Extended Employment
Application for extended-employment appointments may be made by exceptional faculty with RTA-OARS, typically after ten years. Applicants must demonstrate ongoing excellence in two of three areas: research, scholarship, and/or creative or professional practice (RSCP) as recognized in the relevant field or disciplines; pedagogy, teaching, and learning; service. The remaining category requires an ongoing good level of performance.
For Tenure
In the fall semester of the third year after a successful post-probationary review (PPR), faculty will stand for tenure. Tenure appointments are made to faculty who demonstrate ongoing excellence in their research, scholarship, and/or creative or professional practice (RSCP), as well as ongoing excellence in either teaching and learning; or service, with the remaining category requiring an ongoing and good level of performance. Faculty who are to be appointed with tenure must go through a New School tenure-promotion review. Faculty promoted to tenure and extended employment will be automatically promoted to associate professor unless they already hold such rank.
Peer esteem is a valuable measure of scholarly ability. Established scholars and creative or professional practitioners must be widely recognized to be among the leaders in their disciplines or fields, internationally as well as nationally. Every candidate for tenure should have produced scholarship or creative work that New School colleagues and a jury of referees agree is of truly excellent quality. Although departments and programs will differ as to the quantity of works required, and the form they take, quantity is of less concern than that the scholarly work presented in the dossier meets the university's high standards of excellence. At the same time, tenure is not simply a reward for past accomplishments. It is also a vote of confidence regarding future promise that the candidate will continue to be a productive academic and/or creative or professional practitioner, a dedicated and skilled educator, and a dependable colleague. Thus, a candidate for tenure must demonstrate that they are pursuing an active scholarly, creative, or professional agenda—one that shows strong promise of yielding answers to fundamental questions, problems, or challenges in their discipline or field.
When the candidate for tenure is in a professional or creative discipline, departments and programs must make the case to the university that the dossier presented (which may contain different types of evidence than is found in the traditional academic dossier) is excellent. In other words, while the evidence may differ for a candidate in a professional versus a creative discipline, standards of excellence applied for tenure remain the same. The customary academic measure provided by publications and papers may be augmented or replaced by other considerations, such as professional achievements, completed design projects, and/or creative works of art. However, in every case, candidates must have a record of highly original accomplishments, exhibit the potential for continuing to make influential professional or artistic contributions, and be regarded by their peers as among the very best in their fields. The tenure decision rests in large part on the evidence provided by the candidate and the department or program that documents that impact.
Worth noting: All reviews – those for reappointment and promotion in rank follow procedures outlined on the Operational Guidelines.
5) Post-Promotion Reviews for Tenure, EE, and RTA-OARS Faculty
Faculty with RTA-OARS, extended employment (EE) and tenure are not exempt from ongoing evaluation. They, like their renewable-term (RTA) counterparts, have an obligation to maintain their performance as outstanding teachers, exemplary scholars, and good citizens of the university. Likewise, the university has an obligation to work with faculty members in a constructive manner to promote and advance faculty development.
Post-promotion reviews shall be mandatory when triggered by two consecutive negative annual performance evaluations for tenured, EE or RTA-OARS faculty. Annual reviews for years spent on leave without pay shall be disregarded for the purposes of this calculation. The review shall be conducted by an ad hoc committee convened by the appropriate college. Upon recommendation of the head or chair and with the approval of the dean, a post-promotion review may be waived or postponed if there are extenuating circumstances that prohibit a meaningful review. Health problems are one example of extenuating circumstances.
This formal institutional evaluation offers a place for a more in-depth discussion of a faculty member’s progress over the course of their career than is possible in annual reviews. The post-promotion review is meant to assist both the university and faculty in recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of the faculty member and offers an opportunity to develop strategies and plans that may build on perceived strengths and address acknowledged weaknesses. Established procedures exist for termination of tenured, EE or RTA-OARS faculty on grounds of incompetence, malfeasance, or failure to perform duties, as well as on grounds of program termination or the university’s bona fide financial exigency.
The purpose of the post-promotion review is to focus the perspective of the faculty peers on the full scope of the faculty member’s professional competence, performance, and contribution to the department, college, and university mission and priorities. The faculty member has both a right and an obligation to provide a dossier with all documents, materials, and statements that they believe to be relevant and necessary to the review. The faculty member will be given no fewer than four weeks to assemble a dossier for the committee. The head or chair will supply the review committee with the last two annual performance evaluations, all materials considered in those evaluations, any further materials deemed relevant, and other materials the committee requests. Copies of materials supplied to the committee will be shared with the faculty member. The faculty member has the right to provide a written rebuttal of any discrediting evidence provided by the head or chair.
The committee will weigh the faculty member’s contributions to the discipline, the department/college, and the university through teaching; research; and/or scholarly, professional, and creative practice; and service. The burden of proving unsatisfactory performance is placed upon the university. The committee will prepare a summary of its findings and make a recommendation to the head or chair, with copies to the dean and provost. Final action and notification of the faculty member is the responsibility of the head or chair and dean, with the concurrence of the provost.
The review may result in one of the following outcomes.
- Certification of satisfactory performance: The committee may conclude that the faculty member’s competence and/or professional contributions are satisfactory and in fact do meet minimum expectations, thus failing to sustain the assessment of the head or chair. The review is then complete. An unsatisfactory rating in any subsequent year would be counted as the first in a new sequence.
- Certification of deficiencies: The committee may concur that the faculty member’s competence and/or professional contributions are unsatisfactory to meet minimum expectations. The committee may then recommend termination for cause, a sanction other than termination for cause, or a single period of remediation not to exceed two years.
- Termination for cause: If termination for cause is recommended, the case shall be referred to the college-level promotion and tenure committee, which shall review the case as presented to the committee and determine whether the recommendation is consistent with the evidence. If the college-level committee upholds the recommendation for termination, then the procedures in the termination-for-cause section will begin immediately. If the president decides to proceed with the termination, the faculty member shall be provided with a statement of charges and notification of a right to a formal hearing in accordance with termination-for-cause policy.
- Sanction other than termination for cause: A severe sanction generally involves a significant loss or penalty to a faculty member, such as, but not limited to, demotion in rank and/or a reduction in salary, or suspension without pay for a period not to exceed one year. Routine personnel actions such as a below average or no merit increase, reassignment, removal of an administrative stipend, or verbal or written reprimand do not constitute a severe sanction within the meaning of this policy. A recommendation to impose a severe sanction shall be referred to the college-level promotion and tenure committee, which shall review the case as presented to the committee, provide an opportunity for the faculty member to be heard, and determine whether the recommendation is consistent with the evidence. The college-level committee may reject, uphold, or modify the specific sanction recommended by the committee. If the college-level committee also recommends the imposition of a severe sanction, then the same procedure for termination for cause will guide the process. If a severe sanction is imposed or ultimately rejected, then the post-tenure review cycle is considered complete. An unsatisfactory rating in any subsequent year would be counted as the first in a new sequence.
- Remediation: If a period of remediation is recommended, the committee will specify in detail the deficiencies it has noted, detail specific goals and measurable outcomes the faculty member should achieve and establish a timeline for meeting those goals. The head or chair will meet with the faculty member at least twice annually to review progress. The head or chair will prepare a summary report for the committee following each meeting. At the end of the specified remediation period, the committee will either certify satisfactory performance or recommend termination for cause or a sanction other than termination for cause following the procedures described above.
Criteria for Faculty Reviews
Basic Principles
- To the greatest extent feasible, given the capacity of the colleges, structures and procedures should aim to enhance shared faculty governance, by ensuring meaningful consultation between principal faculty and administrative leaders.
- Principal faculty should be given every chance possible to pursue successful and satisfying professional careers at The New School: the structure of mentoring and annual evaluations is a crucial ingredient in achieving this goal.
- The procedures and criteria for promotion and review should be transparent and fair.
Colleges require flexibility to shape their practices and processes to meet their local needs and culture, recognizing that in all cases these processes must be consistent with overall university policy. In some areas, however, university practices should be widely shared to ensure fairness to faculty who often work across the university. A shared guideline for reappointment and promotion processes throughout the university is one such area.
The Provost’s Office requires that all colleges create two committees at two different stages of the reappointment and promotion process. In order to make these processes broadly consistent across colleges.
- Each college needs to create a set of specialized ad hoc committees to conduct a rigorous peer review of full-time faculty members as needed. These committees should consist of experts in the relevant area who are able to assess and document the scholarly and professional achievements of the faculty members under review in sufficient depth and detail that a dean or provost can review the reasoning the committees have used to arrive at their conclusions. Who should constitute the relevant specialized peer group is sometimes self-evident, but in some cases the rationale may need to be spelled out.
- Each college needs to create some form of college-wide review committee, to advise the dean about the recommendations of the ad hoc peer-review committees and to ensure that their procedures conform to appropriate college standards. Such committees will help foster links between full-time faculty that are desirable in themselves, and will help to ensure that rigorous procedural and evaluative norms are consistently upheld in all evaluations of faculty being considered for reappointment or promotion.
The specific form of these two required types of review committee can vary by college.
When forming review committees for tenure cases, in general tenured faculty will be in the majority. In certain cases, however, review committees may include non-tenured principal faculty who are appropriately qualified and experienced. All review committees will continue to be vetted by the provost.
Values of fairness and equity of treatment argue for uniform policies across the university; but differences in culture and aspiration, where pedagogical, professional, and administrative needs may vary, argue for a more tailored approach.
By delivery of this Handbook with the initial appointment contract, or as soon as is practicable, full-time faculty will be advised of governing criteria, as well as procedures generally employed in decisions affecting all types of appointment contracts. Any special criteria adopted by the faculty member’s department or college will be disclosed at the time of appointment or as soon as practicable.
Faculty members shall be advised in writing by the appropriate administrative officer, at the time of initial appointment and as deadlines approach, when decisions affecting retention, promotion, or award of all types of appointment contracts are to be made and when evaluations of performance are to be conducted. They shall be afforded reasonable opportunity to present in person or writing all relevant information.
Department chairs/directors and/or deans review full-time faculty annually. Departments or colleges must also conduct periodic constructive evaluations of all members of the department or college, regardless of rank, at intervals stated in this Handbook. Annual reviews, post-tenure reviews, program reviews, reviews of institutional need, and any other relevant periodic evaluations are placed in each individual personnel file. The recommendations of the faculty and the dean are submitted to the provost.
The provost submits to the president their recommendations for reappointment, promotion, and the award of all types of contracts. The president’s decisions are final, subject to the approving action by the board of trustees.
Evidence Considered by Review Committees
In assessing cases, faculty review committees rely on a range of evidence in the faculty member’s dossier that includes but is not limited to:
- A personal professional statement providing a narrative account of the arc of the candidate’s work and referencing evidence provided in the dossier in the three areas to be evaluated.
- An updated curriculum vita that reflects the state of completion of all scholarly, creative, or professional work.
- Evidence and supporting documents regarding research, scholarship, and/or creative or professional practice (RSCP).
- Evidence and supporting documents regarding teaching and pedagogy including, but not limited to, course evaluations, syllabi, and class assignments noting that course evaluations are submitted by the dean’s office on behalf of the faculty member.
- Evidence of university and professional service.
- Letters of evaluation (when required for tenure, tenure track, EE-track, RTA-OARS, and rank reviews) solicited by the relevant dean’s office from recognized scholars and creative or professional practitioners in the candidate’s discipline or field.
Review Policies and Procedures
Specific procedures for the review process are contained in the PO Operational Guidelines.
Review Schedule and Dossier Guidelines
See the Operational Guidelines for Faculty Reviews for Promotion & Reappointment for the review process timeline, and the Full-Time Faculty Review Dossier for guidelines for faculty in the preparation of the review dossier.