III. POLICIES GOVERNING THE PROFESSIONAL STATUS AND QUALITY OF FACULTY MEMBERS

Policies included in this section govern the professional recognition of faculty, assessment of the fulfillment of their accountability requirements and the provision of opportunities and service assistance for in-service growth and development.

The granting of academic rank to a faculty member signifies peer and University recognition of the level of experience, professional expertise, academic achievement, and scholarly attainment of a person as researcher/instructor/community servant in the cause of education.

Initial academic ranks are recommended at the time of employment by the constituent schools of the University. With the assignment of rank a designation is usually made as to the area of expertise (see policy #2:306:2).

The provisions outlined in this section represent the regular minimum requirements for the various academic ranks for which a faculty member, another employee, or a non-employee of the University may be eligible.

For those persons engaged primarily in academic functions, the categories of academic rank are designated as approved by the provost in consultation with the dean of a school. The advancement of rank is not automatic and is not a matter merely of years of service, seniority, attainment of degrees or a prerequisite for administrative appointment.

Academic rank is given in recognition of intellectual power, sound spiritual influence, scholarly skill and competence, effectiveness in the classroom, citizenship, professional reputation, and devotion to the tasks of teaching and research.

The initial rank for a new faculty member as well as advancements in rank for faculty members are voted by the board of trustees upon the recommendation of the president, after consultation with the appropriate entities of the university.

For the assignment of rank to a new faculty member or to a faculty member transferring from one school to another (see policy #2:306:2 below), or for advancement in rank, the president shall receive a recommendation from the provost after he/she has consulted with the dean and the department chair of the relevant academic entity or the university Rank and Tenure Committee.

For purposes of the service record, the years of successful teaching or other academic experience are determined by a full-time equivalent of college or university academic duties. A person who performs academic duties full time for two semesters during a year receives credit for a full year towards retirement. Persons who perform academic duties part time shall receive partial credit based on the fraction of a full load that constitutes their academic duties. The time spent in advanced study leave may be counted toward the number of years of successful teaching and research for advancement purposes.

The University assigns three types of rank to persons who qualify—regular, temporary, or special rank.

Regular rank is assigned to regular faculty members who teach or do research on a half-time to full-time basis for Andrews University and who do not hold rank at another institution. Regular ranks are assigned to persons on both non-tenure track as well as tenure track positions (see policy #2:310:1).

When a faculty member is hired and assigned a rank by the Andrews University Board of Trustees, a designation is made as to the area in which the rank is held; e.g., English, Old Testament Theology, Economics, Architecture. A subsequent change in the area in which the rank is held, is also voted by the Andrews University Board of Trustees.

Professorial, instructional, or special titles such as endowed and named professorships, designating the field or fields of teaching and research, shall be determined by the provost and recommended to the president after consultation with the dean of the school, the department chair, and the faculty concerned.

Andrews University is a community of scholars whose mission is guided by the classical tradition of the liberal arts, the professions, and the intellectual and spiritual heritage of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which acknowledges God as the source of all truth. The University values academic freedom and responsibility, and encourages its faculty to pursue truth in ways that contribute to their disciplines, the University and its schools, and its communities. Andrews University policies, procedures, and practices for advancement in rank and tenure; are driven by the mission, purposes and objectives of the university. (See policies #1:101 and #1:102).

For purposes of this policy, “advancement” shall mean promotion to the rank of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor or Professor, or the granting of tenure. The provisions of this policy shall apply only to faculty who are eligible by policy or hiring provision for consideration for advancement. (See policies #2:310:1 and #2:136)

Advancement is granted to faculty who show promise of sustained development and professional growth based on a record of teaching, scholarship, and service that meets specified criteria.

The process of advancement consists of three steps:

1. The University develops differentiated advancement models each of which meets expectations set by this policy.
2. Each faculty member develops an individualized advancement plan, based on an approved advancement model and its criteria. When the individualized plan is approved, it forms the basis for advancement recommendations.
3. When eligible, a faculty member applies for advancement by submitting a portfolio, which is evaluated according to the model and criteria specified in his/her advancement plan.

Advancement in rank will take effect on July 1 of a given year. The process for review by the University Rank and Tenure Committee, the entity concerned, and the administration of the University proceeds according to a pre-determined annual schedule and according to certain criteria. (See policy #2:308).

The advancement process is implemented through two committees. The Advancement Criteria Committee with wide representation from departments and schools across campus will develop standard advancement models and will approve or disapprove additional models proposed by schools or departments.

The University Rank and Tenure Committee will make faculty advancement recommendations. It receives the evaluations of department chairs, faculty members, tenure faculty, and others as appropriate and makes promotion recommendations to the president via the provost. The procedures for the Rank and Tenure Committee are detailed in The Committee Handbook.

The rank and tenure process for teachers of K-12 grades in the University Schools differs from the process using the University Rank and Tenure Committee. Because teachers in these schools have responsibilities in teacher preparation with the School of Education, candidates for rank promotion or tenure are reviewed and recommendations made by the School of Education to the Operating Board of the school. Recommendations voted by the Operating Board are sent to the provost, who provides them to the president for approval by the Board of Trustees.

An advancement model is a plan for faculty activities which apply toward advancement, and upon which individual faculty advancement plans are based.

All advancement models shall encourage vigorous, intellectual life exemplifying the highest standards of integrity and rigor, and shall require teaching, service, and scholarship.

Teaching is creating an educational experience in which students learn, develop critical thinking, and acquire knowledge, values, and skills in a discipline or profession. Assessment of learner outcomes is an essential function of teaching. See policy #2:440.

Scholarship is activity, which increases knowledge of a discipline or applies it in professional practice, disseminates this knowledge through learned conversation incorporating critical review and documentation by peers, and contributes important value to a community, a discipline, the University, its departments, or schools;

Service is activity other than teaching or scholarship, which directly benefits a community, a discipline, the University, its departments, or schools.

Different advancement models may give different emphasis to teaching, scholarship, and service, reflecting variations in roles played by faculty. A given department may use a multiplicity of advancement models.

The Advancement Criteria Committee will develop standard advancement models. Departments and schools are encouraged to propose such additional or alternative advancement models as may be appropriate to their respective disciplines, subject to approval by the Advancement Criteria Committee. All advancement models will be re-evaluated by the committee as needed.

Each faculty member will develop an individual plan for advancement to the next rank and/or tenure, based on an approved advancement model, specifying goals and objectives that the faculty member should meet for advancement. The faculty member will be evaluated for advancement based upon this plan. The advancement plan and any substantial alterations; must be approved by the department chair, the school or library dean, and the provost.

The faculty member may change his or her individual plan, subject to approvals as specified above. Once a faculty member’s plan is approved, the University may not invalidate the plan because it has changed the model upon which the plan was based, without the consent of the faculty member.

The advancement plan will take into account the interests and abilities of the faculty member while ensuring that the goals of the department, school or library and University will be met. The advancement plan and the long-term assignment of duties for the faculty member should be mutually supportive.

The faculty hiring process should include discussion of professional goals and advancement models. New faculty should choose a model and construct an individual advancement plan before their first annual review. Current faculty who will become eligible for advancement should develop an individual advancement plan within one calendar year after this policy becomes effective.

At each annual review, the department chair will evaluate progress toward the objectives detailed in the advancement plan, and will inform the faculty member whether satisfactory progress toward the long-term objectives is occurring. The annual review is the most natural time to make a major change in an individual advancement plan, or elect a different advancement model. See policy # 2:326.

The recommendation for advancement is based upon achievement and performance as evidenced by a portfolio prepared by the candidate. This portfolio will be organized according to the candidate’s advancement plan and will contain artifacts, peer evaluations of the artifacts, and any other materials which may be necessary for the committee to judge whether the plan has been fulfilled. The candidate is encouraged to seek advice from colleagues who can evaluate the adequacy of the portfolio and the candidate’s case for advancement.

When eligible to apply for advancement, the candidate, his/her dean and chair will be notified by the provost that the time has come when a portfolio may be submitted for evaluation.

The Rank and Tenure Committee will conduct a comprehensive review of the portfolio, its artifacts and peer evaluations, to determine if the candidate has fulfilled the individual advancement plan. Advancement will be recommended if the Committee decides that the candidate has satisfactorily fulfilled his or her individual plan.

Subsequent to the Rank and Tenure Committee process, the provost informs each applicant of the recommendation for approval or denial by the Rank and Tenure Committee. The faculty member may submit an appeal of a recommendation to deny by the Rank and Tenure Committee to the provost who may call for a re-evaluation by the Committee.

Following the recommendations made by the Rank and Tenure Committee, the provost makes a recommendation to the president on the merits of each case. The president presents the recommendation to the Board of Trustees for approval. The provost informs the faculty member of the decision of the Board of Trustees.

The chair of an academic department has responsibility for the professional development of every faculty member in the department. This includes encouraging and directing the faculty members in that department to maintain a portfolio or record of teaching, research, and other professional experiences. However, the faculty member is responsible for the maintenance and updating of the portfolio.

Development of faculty advancement plans
At the time of hiring, the chair of a newly-recruited faculty member explains to him/her the available advancement models and criteria, and facilitates the new faculty member in preparing the advancement plan for the next appropriate rank and/or tenure. This plan will contain specific long - term expectations with respect to teaching, scholarly activity, and service, including service to the department, school and university (see also policy #2:307:4:1 above).

Approval of faculty advancement plans
The chair is responsible, in consultation with faculty colleagues, to review and approve individual faculty advancement plans and recommend them to the dean for approval.

Monitoring of faculty progress
The chair shall periodically meet with and inform the dean of the school of the status, goals, and progress of each of the faculty members in the department as well as situations in the department that help or hinder the reaching of established goals.

Portfolio Submission
During the promotion process the department chair submits to the Rank and Tenure Committee an evaluation and recommendation for the faculty member under consideration. The recommendation shall constitute part of the considerations for the promotion of a faculty member (see also policy #2:307:4:2 above).

The dean has overall responsibility for the professional development and advancement of faculty members and department chairs in the school.

1. Development and advancement of department chairs

The dean has responsibility for the professional development of every department chair in his/her academic unit. This includes encouraging and directing the chairs to maintain a portfolio or record of teaching, research, and other professional experiences.

At the time of appointment of a new chair, the dean reviews with the individual the changes, which may be needed in the existing advancement plan so that the chair may prepare for advancement and/or tenure as appropriate. On an annual basis, progress towards advancement is discussed with each chair and adjustments may be recommended.

2. Approval of faculty advancement plans

The dean is responsible, in consultation with the department chair, to review and approve individual faculty advancement plans and recommend them to the provost for approval.

3. Portfolio submission

The dean is responsible to periodically review with a department chair the status of the faculty in the department with regard to advancement in rank and/or tenure. The dean confers with the chair on the readiness for portfolio submission of faculty who are eligible to apply for rank promotion and/or tenure.

During the promotion process, the dean submits a recommendation on a candidate’s submitted portfolio to the Rank and Tenure Committee for the committee’s consideration.

The principal or dean of libraries has responsibility for the professional development of every faculty member in their respective academic unit. This includes encouraging and directing the faculty to maintain a professional portfolio.

At the time of employment, the principal or dean of libraries reviews with the faculty member what the expectations and annual plan will be in preparation for the promotion process. Progress towards promotion is discussed with each person on an annual basis and adjustments may be recommended.

During the promotion process, the principal or dean of libraries submits a recommendation to the appropriate committee for consideration.

The provost receives recommendations from chairs and deans for individual faculty advancement plans. After consultation as needed with deans and reviewing these for consistency with approved advancement models the provost approves the advancement plans.

The provost initiates the promotion process by providing notification to faculty of their eligibility to apply for advancement in the next cycle of review. Copies of this notification are provided to the deans and chairs to encourage consultation on readiness of the portfolio. Faculty considered ready are provided with appropriate forms by the dean’s office for completion in a timely manner.

The provost provides portfolio preparation in-service opportunities for interested faculty.

Subsequent to the Rank and Tenure review process, the provost informs each candidate of the committee’s recommendation for approval or denial of advancement.

Appeals, if sought are facilitated by the provost to the Committee (see Appendix 2-G).

After considering the recommendations made by the Rank and Tenure Committee the provost makes a recommendation to the president on the merits of each the case. The provost informs the faculty member of the outcome and the decision of the Board of Trustees.

As part of the provost’s responsibilities to monitor the professional and academic growth of academic personnel, the provost maintains orderly academic/professional records for each faculty member in the University.

Replace with revisions when approved at all levels.