RUL 05.67.204 – College of Education Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Standards and Procedures

Authority: Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost

History: First Issued: 1976 – 1977. Last Revised: July 20, 2016.

Related Policies:
NCSU POL05.20.01 – Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Permanent Tenure
NCSU REG05.20.27 – Statements of Mutual Expectations
NCSU REG05.20.03 – Annual Reviews of Faculty Members (deals with Plans for Professional Development)
NCSU REG05.20.05 – Consultation and Written Assessments, Recommendations and Responses in RPT Reviews
NCSU REG05.20.34 – Non-Tenure Track Faculty Ranks and Appointments

Additional References: 
Office of the Provost RPT Website

Contact Info: Dean of the College of Education (919-515-5900)


1.  Introduction

This rule describes the standards and procedures for reappointment, promotion and tenure decisions in the College of Education and is consistent with and supplemental to the university Academic Tenure Policy.

2.  Realms of Faculty Responsibility

The realms of faculty responsibilities include: teaching and mentoring students, discovery of knowledge through discipline-guided inquiry, creative artistry and literature, technological and managerial innovation, extension and engagement with constituencies outside the university, and service in professional societies and within the university itself. The manner in which various faculty members may demonstrate their contributions in these realms may vary, and the individual’s Statement of Mutual Expectations describes the realms in which the faculty member will focus and on which he/she will be evaluated. Thus, an assessment of a particular faculty member’s individual combination of contributions will be evaluated using the standards described in herein.

3.  General Standards

3.1. The standards to be used in evaluating faculty members for reappointment, promotion, tenure must reflect an expectation of high-level performance in all types of scholarly activities based on the job description of the appointment and Statement of Mutual Expectations.  In addition, the overall program of the faculty member must have addressed the mission and needs of the department and the College. Collegiality is also an expectation of all faculty members.

3.2. Collegiality represents a reciprocal relationship among colleagues and a value system that views diverse members of a university community as critical for the progress and success of its academic mission. The concept of collegiality, however, should be distinguished from congeniality; to be congenial is parallel with sociability and agreeableness, while collegiality is a positive and productive association with colleagues. A person need not be congenial to be collegial. Moreover, collegiality among associates involves appreciation of and respect for differences in expertise, ideas, and background, in addition to mutual trust. Evidence of collegiality is commensurate with broadly accepted disciplinary norms.

3.3. Regardless of their specific type of appointment, all faculty members to be promoted from assistant to associate professor with tenure or from associate professor to professor must demonstrate and document that they have made regular contributions to their discipline in appropriate forms. These contributions should be defined more broadly than the publication of research, as many different forms of scholarly activity contribute to the field. Reputation among peers is important in evaluating faculty. To be promoted or tenured, faculty must have established a regional or national reputation. International recognition should be required, if appropriate for the discipline, for promotion to the rank of professor. Recognition by peers on a national and international basis is more critical in the evaluation of faculty for promotion to the rank of professor than for promotion to lower ranks, although satisfactory progress toward the development of peer recognition should be evident. Receipt of awards and honors provides a basis for quantifying recognition. Other examples are invitations to participate in symposia, to hold editorships, serve on national, regional and state review panels and policy panels. Nomination and election to positions of leadership in professional societies also indicate recognition. Publication as a form of scholarship should encompass the quantity, quality and most appropriate form and outlet as determined by appointment and audiences served.

4.  Standards for Reappointment as Assistant Professor

Based on the Statement of Mutual Expectations and the General Standards in Section 3, the candidate is expected to show progress toward meeting the standards to be promoted to associate professor with tenure with promise of future contribution to the needs of the college and university.

5.  Standards for Associate Professor with Tenure

Based on the Statement of Mutual Expectations and the General Standards in Section 3, the candidate is expected to show progress toward and promise of future success in being promoted to professor.  In addition they are expected to have established a strong record of accomplishments in their area of expertise, have peer recognition and be upholding of the needs of the college and university.

6.  Standards for Professor

Based on the Statement of Mutual Expectations and the General Standards in Section 3, the candidate is expected to have documented accomplishment in their realms of responsibility and promise of continuing contributions in the future.  In addition they are expected to have established a record of accomplishments in their area of expertise.  They are to have established an excellent reputation among their peers, both nationally and internationally, and be known as an expert in their field.

7.  Procedures

7.1. Candidates who are being considered for RPT should be identified early in the spring semester prior to the fall semester in which they will be reviewed.

7.2. Dossier

7.2.1. Immediately following the RADAR generated RPT Dossier Report, each person creating a dossier will include the following additional material for each funded project as PI, co-PI, or Senior Researcher:

·   Amount of money in the College of Education segment, if appropriate.

·   Amount of money administered by the person, if appropriate.

·   A description of their role and % effort on the project (report summer and academic year separately).

7.2.2. Dossiers that do not meet the university and college prescribed format for uniformity, completeness, and style will be returned to the unit that generated them and will not move forward until they are consistent with the directions.

7.2.3. The Departmental Voting Faculty (DVF) cannot consider any candidate’s dossier until the department head states in writing that the candidate’s dossier adheres to the college requirements and the university dossier form.

7.2.4. The candidate must prepare the dossier in consultation with the department head.

7.3. External Evaluations

7.3.1. The external reviewers should be identified and agreed upon in the spring semester prior to the fall semester in which the review will occur.

7.3.2. The department head will consult with the candidate and dean in the identification of individuals with the appropriate expertise from whom external evaluations will be sought. Neither the candidate’s major professor, nor members of his/her doctoral advisory committee, nor any individual who has worked closely with the candidate are to be considered. Department heads are to strive for a list of external evaluators that is 1/2 nominated by the candidate and 1/2 nominated by other appropriate persons. The candidate may discuss the expertise and credentials of outside evaluators and raise objections. The department head has the final decision about who is included. Outside evaluators are provided with documentary evidence of the individual’s accomplishments and asked to provide candid assessment of the quality, quantity, impact, and creativity of those accomplishments. (For further information see REG05.20.05 Consultation and Written Assessments, Recommendations and Responses in RPT Review, Section 5.3.1)

7.3.3. The department head will ensure that the candidate assembles this documentary evidence. The department head or designated representative will obtain external evaluators’ willingness to evaluate. All external evaluators’ letters will be added to the dossier by the head prior to the review by the DVF. If an inappropriate evaluation is received, an explanatory statement must be added to the dossier.

7.3.4. In accordance with NCSU REG05.20.34 – Non-Tenure Track Faculty Ranks and Appointments Section 9.1.3 which requires that each Dean must establish for the college for all the categories of full-time (> 0.75 FTE) NTT faculty with professorial rank whether to require external evaluation letters for the dossier, the Dean of the College of Education has decided the following:

Clinical Assistant/Associate/Full Professors:  Letters required.
Extension Assistant/Associate/Full Professors:  Letters required.
Research Assistant/Associate/Full Professors:  Letters required.
Teaching Assistant/Associate/Full Professors:  Letters required.
Assistant/Associate/Full Professors of the Practice:  Letters required.

7.4. Departmental Voting Faculty Evaluation

7.4.1. The head shall initiate the review by the DVF.

7.4.2. The department head is not to be included as a voting member of the DVF.

7.4.3. In order to exercise a vote in their home department DVF, faculty members holding an administrative position at a level above the department must devote a minimum of 0.5 FTE to regular department faculty responsibilities. .

7.4.4. The DVF conduct an independent assessment of quality and impact and provide important and informed peer evaluation of a candidate. The DVF will review all cases and provide a written assessment of the quality and impact of the candidate’s accomplishments relative to the departmental RPT standards. This written assessment will consist of two parts: quality of the candidate’s accomplishments and impact of the candidate’s accomplishments.  The merit of the faculty member’s accomplishments rather than time in rank is the basic standard for all recommendations for RPT.  In all cases, the dossier should demonstrate that the faculty member has established a record of performance at NC State.

7.4.5. The DVF must also conduct and record the vote on the proposed action and provide it to the head along with the written assessment. The vote tally will include the number of DVF voting for the proposed reappointment, promotion, and/or tenure; the number voting against, the number voting abstain (present at the discussion and vote, but declining to vote), and the number missing (not participating in the discussion and vote). In extraordinary circumstances, the vote may include signed absentee ballots. Written assessments are to include an explanation of the full range of votes cast. For the Department Voting Faculty Review Record the numbers entered for the four categories, ‘For,’ ‘Against,’ ‘Abstain,’ and ‘Missing’ must add up to the total number of those eligible to vote. A member of the DVF who is also a member of the College Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Committee (CRPTC) does not participate in the DVF deliberations, does not vote, and is not included in the total eligible DVF for these cases.

7.4.6. The department head is not to be present during the DVF deliberation, but should be available to address any questions that arise and which the DVF wish to direct to the head.  Following the deliberation and vote, the DVF shall meet as a group with the department head to discuss the decision confidentially.

7.5. Only candidate has withdrawal authority

Per the university regulation for non-mandatory cases, once initiated by submission for formal review, each case will continue through all review levels, unless the candidate withdraws by sending a written request to the department head. Such withdrawal may occur at any time during the department or college level reviews. It is the responsibility of the head to effect the withdrawal from the review.

7.6. College Review

7.6.1. The dean or designated representative will provide for verification of dossier completeness and adherence to required format and will facilitate review by the College of Education Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Committee (CRPTC).

7.6.2. The CRPTC shall consist of five tenured College of Education faculty members, each elected by the full-time tenure track and non-tenure track faculty. No department head, university administrator, or college administrator may serve. College RPT Committee members represent the college, not any department or other entity. CRPTC members who are also part of a candidate’s DVF participate fully in the CRPTC deliberations and cast a vote. There may be no more than two CRPTC members from any one department. The committee shall consist of at least three full professors. Each member’s term of office shall be three years, with staggered appointments, and no member may serve consecutive terms. The chair shall be elected by the CRPTC members. A candidate for promotion or tenure may not serve on the CRPTC during the year of candidacy. If members of the committee withdraw, they shall be replaced by elected members for the balance of the term, after which the elected replacement may stand for election to one (1) full term.

7.6.3. Should questions arise during the CRPTC deliberations, they may be addressed to the dean, who will respond directly or forward the question to the appropriate individual for response.  The CRPTC must document its review by providing a written assessment of the appropriateness of departmental application of its own standards in view of the college standards for all candidates. They must also tally the committee’s vote on the proposed action. The College RPT Committee’s written assessment will consist of two parts: appropriateness of departmental application of its own standards, and appropriateness of candidate’s dossier in terms of College of Education standards for all candidates. The merit of the faculty member’s accomplishments rather than time in rank is the basic standard for all recommendations for RPT.  In all cases, the dossier should demonstrate that the faculty member has established a record of performance at NC State.

7.6.4.  The vote tally will include the number of CRPTC members voting for the proposed reappointment, promotion, tenure; the number voting against, the number voting abstain (present at the discussion and vote, but declining to vote), and the number missing (not participating in the discussion and vote). In extraordinary circumstances, the vote may include signed absentee ballots. For the College RPT Committee Review Record the numbers entered for the three categories, ‘For,’ ‘Against,’ and ‘Abstain’ add up to the total number of those eligible to vote.

7.6.5. Upon receipt of the College RPT committee’s report of individual candidates, the dean may elect to share the review process with associate deans.  The dean will prepare a written assessment and recommendation. The tally of votes and written assessment by the CRPTC and dean’s written assessment and recommendation will be provided by the dean to the CRPTC and department head, who will in turn provide it to the candidate and the DVF. The candidate may provide to the dean a brief (two-page) written response within five working days of receiving the College RPT Committee’s written assessment. The dean will share the candidate’s response with the College RPT Committee, the head and DVF. Finally, the dean will add to the dossier the record of the CRPTC vote tally, the CRPTC written assessment, the dean’s written assessment and recommendation, and any optional response provided by the candidate and transmit it to the provost for the university level review.

7.6.6. Completion of the College review process generally occurs by the end of fall semester.

7.6.7. On an annual basis and in consultation with the College RPT Committee, the dean shall develop the specific schedule and any additional procedures for the college reappointment, promotion and tenure process for the following year.

7.7. Confidentiality and Access to Confidential Information

Confidentiality in the review process will be maintained; no discussions shall take place outside the context of the formal review.