|
4.1 Support Letter from Off-Campus Colleagues, On-Campus Colleagues and Students
4.1.0 Support Letters from Off-Campus Colleagues
4.1.1 Letters from On-Campus Colleagues and Students
4.2 Guidelines for Mid-Probationary (Third-year) Review
4.2.0 Selection of the Third-Year Review Committee
4.2.1 Off-Campus Evaluator
4.2.2 The Review Committee’s Letter
4.2.3 Reappointment After the Third-Year Review
4.3 Guidelines for Writing Letters for the Faculty Evaluation Process
4.4 Guidelines for Outside Evaluators
4.4.0 Purpose of Off-Campus Evaluator
4.4.1 Selection of the Off-Campus Evaluator
4.4.2 Content of Evaluation
Faculty for tenure or promotion may request up to two letters of support from off-campus colleagues.
- Purpose: The purpose of inviting letters of support from off-campus colleagues is to provide the FPC with context and understanding regarding the professional acumen of the candidate which may be unavailable from on campus colleagues. The candidate’s achievement against the established criteria, especially with regard to teaching and professional development is not always easily measured by the FPC. In several of our departments, faculty members are in sub-disciplines that may be relatively unfamiliar to the members of the FPC, and in some cases even other faculty within the department.
Having letters from an off-campus writer with expertise shared by the person under review provides an important context for the evidence provided by the candidate, especially in regard to the content areas of the candidate’s teaching and what might be considered appropriate professional development.
- Selection of Off-Campus Colleague: The candidate will identify up to two colleagues who are in a position to provide the FPC with letters of support for their tenure and/or promotion. The candidate will provide the names of the two individuals to the chair of the FPC. The prospective writers should be knowledgable in the field of the candidate and will normally come from a similar institution. The writer of the support letter should be in a position to comment on the achievement of the candidate using one or more of the critera established for tenure and/or promotion as described in the Faculty Handbook. The off-campus writer should be someone well informed about the specific discipline of the candidate under review and as such may be uniquely positioned to comment on things like the content of the courses taught by the candidate, the candidate’s scholarship/creative or other professional work, etc.
The writer should understand the challenges of being a faculty member at a place like Simpson College. The writer should not have a significant personal relationship with the candidate. It is important that the candidate under review disclose the depth and nature of any such previous relationship when presenting the chair of the FPC with names of their off-campus colleagues who have been invited to write for the file.
The invitation to write a letter of support should come from the person under review and include the college’s expectations for the review process, including a copy of the criteria for reappointment and tenure.
- Contents of the Letter: It is suggested that the candidate furnish the writer with a copy of the candidate’s self-evaluation, vitae, and any other materials (course syllabi, publications, photos of creative work, etc.) they believe might be helpful to the writer.
The letter of support for the candidate should address all of the criteria for tenure or promotion with which the author is familiar. For example, if the writer previously taught with the candidate, they should feel free to comment on the candidate’s teaching. If the writer has reviewed syllabi and assignments submitted by the candidate, they should comment on the appropriateness of the material covered, etc. If the writer has co-authored journals, or worked in another professional context, it would be appropriate for the writer to help put the candidate’s participation into context. At the same time, the writer should not feel compelled to write to all of the criteria. As suggested earlier, the purpose of the letter is not to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate, but rather to help put the evidence submitted by the candidate into context from the perspective of a colleague in the field. Is the content in the candidate’s courses appropriate and up-to-date? Are the assignments and learning objectives appropriate? Is there evidence that the candidate’s research, scholarship, and/or creative work is respected by others within the discipline? These are the types of questions that should be addressed in the support letter.
The support letters submitted by the invited writers will be included in the file and as such will be available to the candidate.
- Purpose: With the exception of the up to two letters from off-campus colleagues and the two out of department colleague letters requested at the time of promotion and tenure review, candidates are strongly discouraged from soliciting letters from colleagues and students. Rather, it is the intent of the committee in notifying the community about the review to regularize how evidence of the candidate’s effectiveness is gathered from those not directly involved in the review process.
- Contents of the Letter: Each semester the chair of FPC will, in an advertisement in the Simpsonian, announce the review schedule to the campus for all faculty members undergoing review for reappointment, tenure or promotion. Signed letters will be accepted for the candidates file in the Academic Dean’s office. These letters should focus on the criteria for reappointment, tenure and promotion as outlined in Simpson College Faculty Handbook Part II: Personnel Polices , Section 7.
- The Role of the Letters: It should be clear to all involved in the review process that the raw number of letters received by a review committee on behalf of a candidate is not itself a significant measure of how well the candidate meets the established criteria. Nor does the absence of such letters indicate failure to meet the criteria. The letters received on behalf of a candidate will be only a small part of the evidence upon which the decision of the committee is made.
The purpose of the mid-probationary review is to provide the candidate and the institution with an evaluation of their work midway to the tenure year. The review is conducted from the department’s perspective, and the institution’s perspective. The review is both formative and summative. A key purpose of the review is to provide the candidate with an objective assessment with regard to performance against the criteria established for tenure. By involving the FPC and the optional use of an off-campus evaluator, the third-year review is an opportunity for the candidate to become aware where they are succeeding against the criteria for tenure in time to address any outstanding issues before tenure, should it be necessary. At the same time, a formal recommendation will also be made concerning reappointment for the following year. It should be noted that the mid-probationary review is not a mini-tenure review. It is a snapshot of the work of the candidate midway to the decision to tenure. The probationary period preceding tenure is just that, a probationary period when the tenure-track faculty member has the opportunity to establish themselves as teacher, advisor, professional within a discipline, and campus citizen. For this reason, during the six-year probationary period, the tenure-track faculty member is provided formative review each year. The third-year review is simply an annual reappointment review conducted on behalf of the full faculty and the institution. A recommendation to reappoint after the third year does not indicate a presumption to tenure.
The department is represented in the review by the department chair. The institution is represented by the division head and the Faculty Personnel Committee (FPC). The procedures for the mid-probationary review are outlined in Simpson College Faculty Handbook, Part III: Personnel Procedures , Section 4. The following guidelines presume the review will take place in the third year of service. The timing of the review may be altered for faculty members who bring service at another institution to Simpson College as negotiated at the time of hire and outlined in the original contract.
The composition and selection of the on-campus review committee will follow the procedures outlined in Simpson College Faculty Handbook, Part III Personnel Procedures, Section 4. The chair of the third-year review committee will be a member of the FPC. The faculty member under review will provide the chair of the third-year review with the names of three Simpson College faculty members from outside the department, one of whom will be selected to serve on the review committee. The candidate will nominate faculty members they believe have some understanding of their professional discipline, and someone they believe can impartially review their work. Normally, the outside of the department committee member will be tenured. The role of the outside of the department member is not to serve as advocate for the candidate, but rather to be trusted, objective participant in the review process.
The chair of the review committee will make the selection of the committee member from outside of the department. Before the committee membership has been finalized, the candidate will be given the opportunity to bring the committee chair’s (the member of the FPC) attention any real, or potential perceived conflict of interest.
See Part IV, Section 4.4 for guidelines for selecting an off-campus evaluator and the expectations for the evaluation.
The procedures for the creation of the third-year review letter are outlined in Simpson College Faculty Handbook, Part III: Personnel Procedures , Section 4. The committee’s letter should be formative in nature and identify the perceived strengths and perceived weaknesses of the candidate as measured against the criteria for reappointment and tenure.
The decision for reappointment for the year following the mid-probationary review is made by the academic dean upon the recommendation of the FPC following the procedures outlined in Simpson College Faculty Handbook, Part III: Personnel Procedures , Section 4.
The reappointment process for subsequent years (normally for years five and six) will follow the procedures outlined in Simpson College Faculty Handbook, Part III: Personnel Procedures , Section 2.
The following are suggestions for writing letters for tenure and promotion files. Part IV of the Faculty Handbook, Section 4.1 outlines the role of the letters from on-campus colleagues and students.
Here are a few questions and answers that might be helpful to faculty as they consider writing letters for colleagues.
Q: Who needs to write letters?
A: First, all review, tenure, and/or promotion files are open files. This means that anyone connected with the college can write a letter and ask that the letter be included in the review, tenure, and/or promotion file. In certain cases (tenure and promotion) specific people are asked to submit letters as outlined in Part III of the Faculty Handbook. Note, that the candidate under review can read the letters and respond to the content of the letters by putting a letter in the file.
Q: If the review, tenure, and/or promotion files are open files, does that mean anyone can read them?
A: No, the only people who can read the file are the faculty member being reviewed, the committee in which is conducting the review, the members of FPC, the chair of the department, the division head, the academic dean, and the president of the college. Tenure and promotion files, but not other review files, are also open to the board of trustees. Saying the files are open simply means that anyone connected with the college can request to add a letter to the file.
Q: If I write a letter for a colleague up for reappointment, tenure and/or promotion, where do I send it?
A: All letters for all reappointment, tenure and/or promotion should be sent to the Academic Dean’s Office. Please make it clear if you are submitting a solicited (you were asked by the candidate, or you are writing as department chair or division head) or an unsolicited (you were not asked) letter and who the letter is for. No unsigned letters will be accepted.
Q: What should the letter contain?
A: Letter writers are being asked to use their professional judgment to assess the candidate in relation to the four criteria (teaching, advising, professional development, and service) listed for tenure and/or promotion. Review the criteria in the Faculty Handbook (Part III: Personnel Procedures , Section 7). The letter writer should:
- Identify if the letter was solicited or unsolicited.
- Describe in what context the letter is being written (i.e. tenured colleague in department, department chair, division head, etc.)
- The letter is not a character reference. Use the four criteria outlined in the Faculty Handbook. Letter writers should address all four areas. A writer will likely focus on the area(s) where they have the most knowledge about the candidate. For example, a letter writer may have knowledge about a colleague’s teaching but have no experience with the candidate when it comes to service to the college. It makes sense to write most about what you know.
- State your position on the candidate’s reappointment, tenure and/or promotion. For example, “I support the promotion of Dr. Doe because I believe they have achieved the standards set by the faculty as outlined in the Faculty Handbook.”
Q: If I am asked to write a letter, do I need to observe a class?
A: Good practice suggests that a letter writer be knowledgeable about their subject. When asked by a colleague to write a letter, it is good practice to ask for a copy of the person’s vitae, observe them in class, review their publications or creative work, and have a conversation with the person before writing the letter. There is no requirement to do these things, it is just good practice.
Q: If I write a letter for someone, do I send a copy to that person? Should I talk to the person and tell them what I am going to write?
A: Since the candidate will likely read the letter in the file, it is up to the letter writer to decide whether to share the contents of the letter before submitting it to the Academic Dean’s Office.
Q: What if I am a department colleague, department chair, or division head, and I don’t want to write a letter? Can I be forced to write a letter for someon?
A: You should not write a letter if you feel that you cannot be objective.
You should not write if you have a conflict of interest. Check with your department chair, or the academic dean if you are not sure about a possible conflict of interest.
At the same time, you are being asked to participate in the process as part of your professional responsibility. You are being asked for your professional opinion based on your experience with the candidate and your understanding of the established criteria. You are bing asked if you believe the candidate meets the criteria established for reappointment, tenure and/or promotion as you understand them. Your opinion could be yes, or it might be no. The important thing is that you keep your letter focused on the four elements of the criteria and write only about what you believe to be true. Speak from your experience with the candidate. Do not include speculation, conjecture, or things you have heard from others.
Q: If I choose not to write a letter, will the person be penalized? How important are the letters?
A: The decision will be based on the information in the file, not on what is missing. It would be wrong for anyone to infer why a letter has not been written. The decision process includes multiple types of data, from multiple sources. The committee will be looking for a pattern. No one letter or other single piece of evidence will sway the decision.
Q: If I am under review, how do I select someone to write a letter for my file? What do I tell the person?
A: Generally, you should ask colleagues who know your work through personal experience. You will want someone to speak effectively about all four of the criteria. At the same time, it is perfectly acceptable to tell the writer that you think they are especially prepared to highlight your work in a particular area. For example, if you have served on a committee with your letter writer, you may wish to ask that person to make sure to speak to their experience with you on the committee.
Q: If I am under review but not being considered for promotion or tenure, may I ask other faculty members to write a letter for my file? May I ask students to write?
A: According to the Faculty Handbook, Part IV, Section 1, people under review are strongly discouraged from soliciting letters from colleagues and students.
As indicated in Part III Section 5, faculty members applying for tenure are required to have an outside evaluator. In addition, faculty members in their mid-probationary review are strongly encouraged to have an outside evaluator (Part III Section 4).
The purpose of having an evaluation on campus by an off-campus colleague is to provide FPC with context and understanding regarding the professional acumen of the candidate which may be unavailable from on campus colleagues. The candidate’s achievement against the established criteria, especially with regard to teaching and professional development, is not always easily measured by the FPC. In several of our departments, faculty members are in sub-disciplines that may be realtively unfamiliar to the members of FPC, and in some cases even other faculty within the department.
Having evaluations from off-campus colleagues with expertise shared by the person under review provides an important context for the evidence provided by the candidate, especially in regard to the content area of the candidate’s teaching and what might be considered appropriate professional development.
Selection of off-campus evaluators occurs in the semester prior to review. The faculty member under review for tenure will provide the Academic Dean with the names of five possible off-campus evaluators, and the Academic Dean will select the evaluator. The faculty member under review for mid-probation who chooses to ask for an off-campus evaluator will provide the chair of their third-year review committee the names of three possible off-campus evaluators, and the chair will select the evaluator and provide the name to the Academic Dean to arrange the on-campus visit.
The prospective evaluator should be knowledgeable in the candidate’s field and will normally come from a similar institution. The prospective evaluator should be tenured and hold regular faculty appointments. The prospective evaluator should be in a position to comment on the achievement of the candidate using one or more of the criteria established for tenure and/or promotion as described in the Faculty Handbook. The evaluator should be someone well informed about the specific discipline of the candidate under review and as such may be uniquely positioned to comment on things like the content of courses taught by the candidate and/or the candidate’s scholarship, creative or other professional work. The evaluator should understand the challenges of being a faculty member at a place like Simpson College. The evaluator should not have a significant personal relationship with the candidate. It is important that the candidate under review disclose the depth and nature of any such previous relationship when presenting the chair of the mid-probationary review committee or the Academic Dean with the names of their off-campus colleagues who could be invited to evaluate the candidate on Campus. The actual invitation to the outside evaluator will be sent by the Academic Dean. The invitation will include the college’s expectations for the review process, including a copy of the criteria for reappointment and tenure.
The off-campus evaluator will normally be sceduled to visit campus for one or two days though the visit may be remote if necessary. Before the visit, the evaluator will receive a copy of the candidate’s self-evaluation, vitae, current syllabi, and any other materials (publications, photos of creative work, etc.) approved by the chair of the committee. The exact visit schedule (whether in person or remote) will be determined by the chair of the review committee.
Normally, the off-campus evaluator will:
- Meet with the candidate
- Meet with the review committee, or the two FPC members assigned to the candidate
- Attend at least one of the candidate’s classes
- Review the candidate’s file
- Meet with the other members of the department
- Meet with the Academic Dean
Upon the conclusion of the visit, the off-campus evaluator will write a letter of evaluation of the candidate that addresses the criteria for reappointment and tenure. The letter should be essentially formative identifying areas of strength and areas of perceived weakness against the criteria (whether evaluating for mid-probation or tenure.) It will be particularly important for the outside evaluator to put the candidate’s professional expertise and continuing development into context for the committee. Is the content of the candidate’s courses appropriate and up-to-date? Are the assignments and learning objectives appropriate? Is there evidence that the candidate’s research, scholarship, and/or creative work is respected by others within the discipline? The letter should NOT include a recommendation on reappointment or tenure.
The letter from the off-campus evaluator will be included in the candidate’s review file.
|
