Procedures for Appointments for Teaching Professors Ranks

< BACK TO RICE POLICIES

Policy Number: 201

Policy Suffix: D

APPLIES TO ALL RICE UNIVERSITY TEACHING FACULTY GOVERNED BY POLICY #201-17

Preface

This document is a companion to the University’s policies on Appointments, Promotion and Tenure (#201-17) and is intended to serve as a guide for candidates, department chairs, deans, and members of the Teaching Professor Committee (TPC). The document is assembled in three parts: Part I describes the application and review process for Assistant Teaching Professor. Part II describes the process for promotion to Associate Teaching Professor and application process for an external candidate for this position. Part III describes the process for promotion to Full Teaching Professor and application process for an external candidate for this position. Appointment and promotion decisions are important, and clarity in both processes is the intent of these Procedures.

Except for changes due to policy revisions, the procedures by which candidates are evaluated should remain constant over time. Turnover occurs in the ranks of those who evaluate candidates for appointment and promotion. These Procedures are intended to provide continuity to the process; they serve as a tutorial for those who are new to the process and a reference for those who have participated before.

As much as possible, it is also important that processes be applied uniformly to the many different disciplines at Rice. This document does not establish policy, but these procedures follow historical practice and are fully consistent with Policy 201-17.

Note that strict adherence to confidentiality is important at all stages of the review process. Except as specified in these procedures, all personnel involved in appointment and promotional reviews must hold in strict confidence all discussions and materials related to the review, including but not limited to letters, both review and recommendation, letters from department chairs and deans, testimony to the TPC by deans, department chairs, and all deliberations of the TPC. No person meeting with the TPC should draw inferences about the process or disclose to the candidate or to others what takes place at a Committee meeting at any time. The Provost may share the TPC’s recommendations with the respective deans, but otherwise no one may disclose those recommendations either before or after the list of appointments/promotions has been published.

NOTE: Throughout this document, “department” will be used to refer to a variety of academic units engaged in teaching, including traditional departments, schools, centers, et al.

Criteria for appointment as assistant teaching professor

Appointment to the rank of assistant teaching professor should be reserved for individuals who show promise and commitment to become pedagogical leaders in their discipline, and who wish to be on a career path that involves classroom teaching and service to the department, school and university.

Departments, schools, or other educational units appointing assistant teaching professors agree to provide resources and opportunities appropriate for professional development on this career path.

Assistant teaching professors must hold a terminal degree in an appropriate field.

For initial appointment, candidates must

show promise as a teacher,
show knowledge of recent evidence-based advances in pedagogical practices in their discipline,
show potential to become a pedagogical leader in their discipline, and
show a willingness to perform service at the department (or equivalent) level.

Summary of process for appointment of assistant teaching professor

Each entity making appointments should follow the process established for the relevant organizational component of the university. Each school must develop its process for appointing assistant teaching professors before the nomination and consideration of any individuals and make this document available to the faculty. This process will be established by the dean of each school, working with department chairs or relevant directors and school faculty.
All tenured and tenure-track faculty and all assistant, associate, and full teaching professors in the relevant department or other academic unit are eligible to participate in the discussion of the appointment of an assistant teaching professor, and all are eligible to vote on whether to approve or reject the nomination.
Levels of review and approval
- Department or other academic unit examines dossier and votes on whether or not to nominate.
- Department chair or relevant director forwards the dossier to dean with his/her letter of recommendation.
- Dean forwards the dossier to the provost with his/her recommendation.
- Appointments must be approved by the provost (the TPC will only be involved in appointments/promotions to Associate and Full Teaching Professor).
Formal appointment letters of assistant teaching professors are issued by the dean
- The appointment letter must include
  - a description of the appointee’s teaching duties and other responsibilities,
  - the effective dates,
  - procedures to be used for their annual review and evaluation, and
  - statement of expectations of teaching professor track.
A copy and/or a link to a current version of Policy 201 and the current University and School procedures documents must be included with appointment letter.
Reappointments at the same rank—that is, contract renewals—are managed within schools or other appointing units.

Department chair’s/relevant director’s responsibilities

Explain to candidates how the teaching professor ranks differ from lecturer and other NTT appointments, including an explanation of the trajectory of the teaching professor track.
Explain the appointment process and timeline to candidates.
Secure consent from candidate to proceed with review for appointment.
Supervise the compilation of the appointment dossier in the case of an internal candidate; secure appointment dossier/materials in the case of an external candidate.
At all meetings concerning the appointment, remind faculty of the confidential nature of the entire appointment process.
Write a letter of nomination, which will include the following key information about the candidate’s work:
- Candidate’s current department and rank (if available), and proposed rank.
- Candidate’s professional history, including education, start date at Rice and years in rank, if applicable; if there is an unusual professional trajectory, the context must be clearly described.
- Candidate’s teaching record at Rice or elsewhere, if available, including information from course evaluations, enrollment, and fraction of load. For internal Rice candidates this record should also include student Overall Teaching Effectiveness score with % of responses and department’s assessment of teaching history and promise for future.
- Candidate’s current knowledge of recent evidence-based advances in pedagogical best practices.
- Candidate’s record of service both to Rice and to the external professional community, if applicable. Examples include, but are not limited to, service on departmental and university committees; service in the school, residential colleges and in organizations sponsored by the University and its Alumni Association; educational outreach to the community.
- Candidate’s ability to meet each of the criteria of appointment.
- Summary of review process, including vote of faculty, and recommendation.

Materials for Appointment (‘dossier’):

Teaching Statement (2-3 pages): A report on teaching and educational objectives in which the candidate discusses teaching goals for the next few years, reflects on how s/he expects to enhance the pedagogy of the department, and describes the distinctive aspects of his/her teaching to date, if available.
Documentation of Teaching
- List of courses most recently taught (up to 4 years of courses), if available
- Syllabi for courses most recently taught (up to 4 years of courses), if available
A current curriculum vitae
Names for three references familiar with the candidate’s teaching experience; if the candidate is internal, two names should be provided (the Chair will provide the third letter of recommendation). Names of current or former students may not be substituted for references.
Chair’s letter of nomination and chair’s summary of review process

If the candidate is external to Rice, application materials will be submitted to the Chair/relevant Director.

If the candidate is internal, the Chair/relevant Director will have primary responsibility for compiling the application materials, including the documentation of teaching as well as written consultations or evidence not provided by the candidate. An internal candidate will submit all other materials indicated to the Chair/relevant Director.

Reporting the department recommendation to the candidate and the dean

If the department’s/ academic unit’s decision is negative, the chair/ relevant director should summarize the reasons for the decision and explain fully the consequences of the decision.

Next, the chair/ relevant director will write a confidential memorandum to the dean that will:

Summarize the procedures followed in reaching the department’s recommendation, including the vote;
Present the reasons that the department perceives the appointment is merited, or not, including discussion of the quality of the candidate’s teaching, teaching-related service, contributions to curricular enhancements, role in advancing pedagogical best practices in the department, school, or university, and the candidate’s service to the department, school, and university.
Present his or her own individual evaluation of the candidate’s qualifications for promotion.

The chair/ relevant director will include this memo in the dossier and forward it to the dean.

Once a case has been reviewed by a department and forwarded to the school, the dean will evaluate the candidate’s qualifications for appointment using the established school procedures.

Upon completion of the review, the dean will write a confidential letter to offer his or her evaluation of the candidate and will assess the potential impact of the appointment on the long- term goals of the department, the school, and the university. This letter will be added to the dossier and sent to the Provost’s office.

Performance evaluation

Chairs/relevant Directors are responsible for ensuring that performance evaluations are carried out for each faculty member in the teaching professor ranks yearly.
The performance of teaching faculty should be documented with written evaluations that are reviewed by the department chair/relevant director and the dean.
Performance evaluations will assess teaching performance using indicators appropriate to the discipline, only one of which may be student evaluations.
Departments should involve teaching professors and associate teaching professors in the evaluation of assistant teaching professors.
In the third year of the assistant teaching professor track, the chair/relevant director will complete an enhanced performance review. In this review, the chair/relevant director must offer an assessment of the assistant teaching professor’s trajectory toward promotion to associate teaching professor. A written document summarizing this enhanced performance review must be shared with the reviewee, the Dean, and the Provost.

Criteria for reappointment

For reappointment, assistant teaching professors must

have a record of consistently excellent teaching, which may be demonstrated with a combination of teaching (such as classroom, laboratory, studio, etc.) and advising;
show knowledge and continued application of evidence-based pedagogical practices in the discipline;
show contributions at department level to improve pedagogy, demonstrated with curriculum development and/or innovative pedagogical practices; and
demonstrate service at the department level.

Formal appointment letters for additional contracts are issued by the Dean; the appointment letter must include

a description of the appointee’s teaching duties and other responsibilities,
the effective dates,
procedures to be used for their annual review and evaluation,
notice that they must be promoted to associate teaching professor by the end of sixth year or be removed from teaching professor ranks, and
statement of expectations for eventual promotion to associate teaching professor.

Criteria for appointment as associate teaching professor

Appointment to the rank of associate teaching professor should be reserved for individuals who have established a record of consistently excellent teaching at Rice or elsewhere, who are emerging pedagogical mentors in their department and school, who wish to continue on a career path that involves classroom teaching as well as service to the department, school, and university, and who are committed to becoming pedagogical leaders in their discipline.

Departments, schools, or other educational units appointing associate teaching professors agree to provide resources and opportunities appropriate for professional development on this career path.

Associate teaching professors must hold a terminal degree in an appropriate field.

For appointment the candidate must

have a record of sustained excellent teaching at the rank of assistant teaching professor or equivalent, which may be demonstrated with a combination of teaching (such as classroom, laboratory, studio, et al.) and advising;
have a record of applying recent evidence-based advances in pedagogical practices in their discipline;
have a record of professional activity that brings current knowledge of the discipline and educational pedagogy into the classroom. The record may include, but is not limited to, pedagogical research, development and/or assessment of pedagogical practices, professional development, creative work relevant to the discipline, curriculum development, and/or innovative pedagogical practices, and/or mentoring of graduate students or other faculty members in teaching; and
have a record of excellent service at multiple levels (department, school and/or university).

Summary of process for promotion to or appointment as associate teaching professor

Each entity making appointments should follow the process established for the relevant organizational component of the university. Each school must develop its process for appointing associate teaching professors before the nomination and consideration of any individuals and make this document available to the faculty. This process will be established by the dean of each school, working with department chairs or relevant directors and school faculty.
All tenured and tenure-track faculty and all full and associate teaching professors in the relevant department or other academic unit participate in the discussion of the appointment of an associate teaching professor, and all vote on whether to approve or reject the nomination.
The evaluation process may include the solicitation of letters external to Rice, but this is not a requirement.
Dossiers are due in early November for appointments starting the following July. New appointments should be presented during the semester preceding the start of the appointment.
Levels of review and approval:
- Department chair/relevant director of other academic unit examines dossier, and department/academic unit votes on whether or not to promote or appoint.
- Department chair/relevant director forwards the dossier to dean with his/her recommendation.
- Dean forwards the dossier to the Provost with his/her recommendation.
The Teaching Professors Committee (TPC) considers dossier and makes its recommendation to Provost.
Formal appointment letters of associate teaching professors are issued by the Provost. A memo from the Dean must be attached to this letter and include the following:
- a description of the appointee’s teaching duties and other responsibilities.
- the effective dates.
- procedures to be used for their annual review and evaluation.
- statement of expectations of teaching professor track.
A copy and/or a link to a current version of Policy 201 and the current University and School procedures documents must be included with appointment letter.
Reappointments at the same rank—that is, contract renewals—are managed within the schools or other appointing units.

Department chair’s/relevant director’s responsibilities

Explain to candidates the expectations of an associate teaching professor.
Explain the promotion process and timeline to candidates.
Secure consent from candidate to proceed with the review for promotion (for internal candidates).
Request suggestions from the candidate, the faculty, and the dean for the department reviewer and the extra-departmental reviewer (see Internal Reviewers section, below).
Appoint the internal reviewers with full consideration of suggestions made by candidate, faculty, and dean (see Internal Reviewers section, below).
Supervise the compilation of the appointment dossier in the case of an internal candidate; secure appointment dossier/materials in the case of an external candidate.
At all meetings concerning the appointment, remind faculty of the confidential nature of the entire review process.
Write a confidential memorandum, including the faculty’s vote, addressing all relevant issues to accompany the dossier and summarizing the procedures followed, the reasons that the department perceives the appointment is merited, including discussion of all criteria.

Internal candidates will provide to the chair/relevant director for use in the evaluation process and compilation of the dossier:

A current curriculum vitae
Contributions to Teaching and Education
1. Candidate’s Teaching Statement (2-3 pages)
  
  The Teaching Statement is a report on teaching and education successes in which the candidate reflects on the distinctive aspects of his or her teaching career and practice and should include:
  - Teaching philosophy, strategies, accomplishments, and objectives.
  - New courses developed, curricular innovations, creation of curricular materials, interdisciplinary/collaborative teaching projects.
  - New methods or improvements in teaching, assessment and/or grading.
  - Teaching awards from Rice or other entities.
  - Teaching goals for the next few years.
2. Documentation of Teaching (up to 6 years)
  - List of courses taught most recently
  - Syllabi of courses taught most recently.
  - NOTE: Department should gather all university teaching evaluations for candidate.
Candidate’s Service Statement (1-2 pages)
This document is a report on service at the departmental, school and university level. It may also include any contributions to Rice and to the field of his or her expertise. This document should reflect on the following aspects, as appropriate:
- Role as teaching mentor to colleagues, graduate or undergraduate students.
- Service on department, school, and university committees.
- Work on accreditation requirements.
- Service or other awards from Rice or other entities.
Professional Activities
- Participation in seminars or professional meetings on teaching.
- Preparation of a textbook, lab manual, courseware, etc.
- Description of instructional improvement projects developed or carried out.
Contributions to the Teaching Profession and/or Rice
- Publications, papers delivered, or reviews;
- Service on department, school, and/or university committees;
- Assistance to colleagues on teaching matters;
- Work on curriculum revision or development; and/or
- Work on accreditation requirements.
Honors, Awards, Research, or Recognitions
- Teaching awards;
- Other awards, from Rice or other entities;
- Invitations based on teaching reputation to consult, give workshops, write articles and/or
  - Requests for advice on teaching by committees or other organized groups
  - Service or participation in professional organizations
  - Papers delivered, invited talks (within Rice)
  - Papers delivered, invited talks (outside Rice)
Suggestions for selection of evaluators and letter-writers
- Departmental reviewer.
- Extra-departmental reviewer.
- Individuals with knowledge of candidate’s service activities in the university and in the profession.
- Former students.
Any additional relevant information (e.g., any activities of relevance that are not specifically requested; individuals who should not be asked for letters).

The dossier includes: An abstract prepared by the department summarizing the following key information about the candidate’s work:
- Candidate’s department, current and proposed rank.
- Candidate’s education.
- Candidate’s teaching record at Rice—this is a table which includes the year of the course, the course number and title, enrollment, fraction of load, and the student evaluation Overall Teaching Effectiveness score with % of responses. In addition the department’s assessment of teaching should be given and include new courses implemented along with any other relevant information. This assessment should be based on up to 6 years of the most recent teaching record.
- Candidate’s contributions to Rice and the pedagogical practice in his/her field, including publications, papers delivered, reviews, and other relevant works that demonstrate expertise in pedagogy and engagement with the discipline.
- Candidate’s awards and prizes.
- Candidate’s record of service to Rice University. Examples include the following: service on departmental and university committees; service in the school, residential colleges and in organizations sponsored by the University and its Alumni Association.
- Candidate’s professional history, including start date at Rice and years in rank or; if there is an unusual professional trajectory, that information will be put in context.
- Summary of the reasons for Candidate’s perceived fulfillment of the criteria for appointment.
- Summary of department’s process for carrying out review, including vote of faculty and recommendation.

Letters to be included in the dossier:

A letter from the Dean is required.
A letter from the department chair or relevant director is required.
One letter from an internal reviewer is required.
One letter from an extra-departmental reviewer is required.
One or more letters attesting to service to university and department committees, professional organizations and community outreach are required. A maximum of 4 letters addressing service should be included in the dossier.

For external candidates to be considered for Associate Teaching Professor the following are required:

Teaching statement of 2-3 pages.
Documentation of teaching, including a list of courses taught and syllabi.
Service statement of 1-2 pages.
Professional activities.
Contributions to the teaching profession (publications, papers delivered, reviews, support colleagues).
Honors, awards, or other recognitions.
Suggested names of up to five evaluators/letter writers (individuals with deep knowledge of candidate’s teaching and service, including names identified as former students) and names of individuals who should not be asked for letters.
Any additional relevant information.

Internal reviewers
Two internal reviewers will be appointed, one from within the department and one from outside the department. The internal reviewers should be chosen from associate/full professors or associate/full teaching professors who are able to provide a balanced assessment of the candidate’s teaching and contributions to the pedagogical practice, innovation, curricular development, and mentoring of other faculty (whether TT or NTT).

The chair/relevant director and the dean will select the internal reviewers from a list of names suggested by both members of the department and the candidate. Once the dean and chair/relevant director agree on the selection, the chair/relevant director will write to the reviewers asking them to write a confidential assessment of the candidate’s qualifications for appointment. In making this request, the chair/relevant director will use a standard letter approved by the dean and the provost. Although the specific language in this letter may vary from school to school, all departments within the school will use the same letter. Modifications of this standard letter must be approved by the dean and the provost.

All materials assembled by the candidates and department for the dossier will be available to the internal reviewers when preparing their written evaluations. Prior to the department’s review, the internal reviewers should review the dossier, write an evaluation of the candidate’s qualifications for appointment, and submit it to the chair/relevant director for inclusion in the dossier.

The internal reviewers are bound by rules of confidentiality. They must be especially circumspect in avoiding any conversations with the candidate during this period that might compromise confidentiality or the impartiality of their evaluation.

During its deliberations, the TPC, at its discretion, may ask the internal reviewers to appear before it for further consultation.

Department review

When the full dossier has been compiled, including the reports of the two internal reviewers, the department chair/relevant director will convene the appropriate departmental faculty to review the proposal for appointment. All tenured, tenure-track, and associate and full teaching professors should be involved in the review, following the school’s process.

The following questions should be considered:

What is the quality and impact of the candidate’s teaching?
How has the candidate influenced the pedagogical practice of the department, the school, the university, and/or the profession?
How has the work of the candidate been recognized in the profession? Has the candidate established a regional or national reputation as a leader in pedagogy in the field/discipline?
Has the individual been involved in activities and service in relevant professional organizations?
Does the individual demonstrate a consistently excellent or outstanding record of teaching? This evaluation should, among others, be based on the following: student teaching evaluations, departmental evaluations including peer observation and review, letters from students, prizes and awards for teaching, record in mentoring students, implementation of new courses, novel deployment of information technology for teaching, curriculum development.
Has the candidate made useful contributions to service in the Rice community and in the external professional community?
Does the candidate strengthen the pedagogical mission of the department, the school, and the university and if so, how?
What is the reason for believing that the candidate will continue to be an outstanding teacher and a contributing member of the university community?

Reporting the department recommendation to the candidate and the dean

If the department’s/academic unit’s decision is negative, the chair/relevant director should summarize the reasons for the decision, explain fully the consequences of the decision, and inform the candidate of the right to an appeal on procedural grounds.

Next, the chair/relevant director will write a confidential memorandum to the dean that will:

Summarize the procedures followed in reaching the department’s recommendation, including the vote.
Present the reasons that the department perceives the appointment is merited, or not, including discussion of the quality of the candidate’s teaching, teaching-related service, contributions to curricular enhancements, role in advancing pedagogical best practices in the department, school, or university, and the candidate’s service to the department, school, and university.
Present his or her own individual evaluation of the candidate’s qualifications for promotion.

The chair/relevant director will include this memo in the dossier and forward it to the dean.

Dean’s role
Once a case has been reviewed by a department and forwarded to the school, the dean will evaluate the candidate’s qualifications for appointment using the established school procedures.

Upon completion of the review, the dean will write a confidential letter to offer his or her evaluation of the candidate and will assess the potential impact of the appointment on the long- range goals of the department, the school, and the university. This letter will be added to the dossier and sent to the Provost’s office for review by the TPC.

Occasionally, a dean may disagree with the recommendation of the department to promote based on qualifications of the candidate; conversely, a dean may support a candidate when the department has made the decision to deny promotion. The dean will in all cases forward the dossier to the TPC along with a confidential letter of recommendation.

The TPC, at its discretion, may ask deans to appear before it for further consultation.

Performance evaluation

Chairs/relevant directors are responsible for ensuring that performance evaluations are carried out for each faculty member in the teaching professor ranks yearly.
The performance of teaching faculty should be documented with written evaluations that are reviewed by the department chair/relevant director and the dean.
Performance evaluations will assess teaching performance using multiple indicators appropriate to the discipline and to the level, only one of which may be student evaluations.
Departments should involve teaching professors and associate teaching professors in the evaluation of associate teaching professors.

Criteria for reappointment
For reappointment, teaching professors must have a record that demonstrates fulfillment of the criteria for the original appointment.

Formal appointment letters for additional contracts are issued by the Dean; the appointment letter must include:

a description of the appointee’s teaching duties and other responsibilities,
the effective dates,
procedures to be used for their annual review and evaluation, and
statement of expectations for eventual promotion to full teaching professor

Appeals

Candidates may appeal decisions based on process issues. The candidate must notify the Faculty Senate in writing of her/his intention to file an appeal no later than thirty (30) calendar days after receiving the provost’s letter of official notification that he/she has not been appointed/promoted to the rank of Associate Teaching Professor. The candidate must then file an appeal within sixty (60) calendar days with the Faculty Senate’s Appeals and Grievances Committee. The review, which is conducted by the Appeals and Grievances Committee, examines procedural issues only and does not assess the substantive issues having to do with the candidate’s qualifications for appointment/promotion. Once the review is complete, the Appeals and Grievances Committee files a written report of its findings to the president, who subsequently decides what action to take.

Criteria for appointment as full teaching professor

Appointment to the rank of full teaching professor should be reserved for individuals who have established a record of consistently excellent teaching at Rice or elsewhere, who are recognized as pedagogical mentors in their department and school, and who are demonstrated pedagogical leaders in their discipline. Full teaching professors are expected to maintain high levels of excellence in teaching and other responsibilities.

Departments, schools, or other education units appointing full teaching professors agree to provide resources and opportunities appropriate for continued professional development and leadership on this career path.

Full teaching professors must hold a terminal degree in an appropriate field.

For appointment the candidate must

have a record of sustained excellent teaching at the rank of associate teaching professor or equivalent, which may be demonstrated with a combination of teaching (such as classroom, laboratory, studio, etc.), and advising;
have a record of professional activity that brings current knowledge of the discipline and educational pedagogy into the classroom. The record may include pedagogical research, development and/or assessment of pedagogical practices, professional development, creative work relevant to the discipline, curriculum development and/or innovative pedagogical practices, innovative pedagogical practices, and/or mentoring of graduate students or other faculty members in teaching;
show evidence of excellent pedagogical standing in the discipline, as demonstrated in any of various ways identified by the candidate and the department. Examples include: presenting at national conferences, publishing articles in disciplinary or pedagogical journals, writing textbooks or other instructional materials, serving as an expert in the discipline, presenting at peer institutions, or making significant, innovative contributions to the curriculum;
show evidence of impact on the pedagogical enterprise of the department and, possibly, the school; and
have a record of excellent service at the department, school, and university levels.

Summary of process for appointment as full teaching professor

Each entity making appointments should follow the process established for the relevant organizational component of the university. Each school must develop its process for appointing full teaching professors before the nomination and consideration of any individuals and make this document available to the faculty. This process will be established by the dean of each school, working with department chairs or relevant directors and school faculty.
All tenured and tenure-track faculty and all full teaching professors in the relevant department or other academic unit are eligible to participate in the discussion of the appointment of a full teaching professor, and all are eligible to vote on whether to approve or reject the nomination.
The evaluation process may include solicitation of letters external to Rice, but this is not a requirement.
Dossiers are due in early November for appointments starting the following July. New appointments should be presented during the semester preceding the start of the appointment.
Levels of review and approval:
- Department chair/relevant director of other academic unit examines dossier and department/academic unit votes on whether or not to appoint/promote.
- Department chair/relevant director forward the dossier to the dean with his/her recommendation.
- Dean forwards the dossier to the Provost with his/her recommendation.
The Teaching Professor Committee (TPC) considers the dossier and makes its recommendation to Provost.
Formal appointment letters of full teaching professors are issued by the Provost. A memo from the Dean must be attached to this letter and include the following:
- a description of the appointee’s teaching duties and other responsibilities.
- the effective dates.
- procedures to be used for their annual review and evaluation.
- statement of expectations of teaching professor ranks.
A copy and/or a link to a current version of Policy 201 and the current University and School procedures documents must be included with appointment letter.
Reappointments at the same rank—that is, contract renewals—are managed within schools or other appointing units.

Department chair’s/relevant director’s responsibilities

Explain to candidates the expectations of a full teaching professor.
Explain the promotion process and timeline to eligible candidates.
Secure consent from candidate to proceed with the review for promotion (for internal candidates).
Request suggestions from the candidate, the faculty, and the dean for the department reviewer and the extra-departmental reviewer (see Internal Reviewers section, below).
Appoint the internal reviewers with full consideration of suggestions made by candidate, faculty, and dean (see Internal Reviewers section, below).
Supervise the compilation of the appointment dossier in the case of an internal candidate; secure appointment dossier/materials in case of an external candidate.
At all meetings concerning the appointment, remind faculty of the confidential nature of the entire review process.
Write a letter of recommendation addressing all relevant issues to accompany the dossier.

Internal candidates will provide to the chair/relevant director for use in the evaluation process and compilation of the dossier:

A current curriculum vitae.
Contributions to Teaching and Education.
1. Candidate’s Teaching Statement (2-3 pages)
  The Teaching Statement is a report on teaching and education successes in which the candidate reflects on the distinctive aspects of his or her teaching career and practice and should include:
  - Teaching philosophy, strategies, accomplishments, and objectives.
  - New courses developed, curricular innovations, creation of curricular materials, interdisciplinary/collaborative teaching projects.
  - New methods or improvements in teaching, assessment and/or grading.
  - Teaching awards from Rice or other entities.
  - Teaching goals for the next few years.
2. Documentation of Teaching (up to 8 years)
  - List of courses taught most recently.
  - Syllabi of courses taught most recently.
  - NOTE: Department should gather all university teaching evaluations for candidates.
Candidate’s Service Statement (1-2 pages)
This document is a report on service at the departmental, school and university level. It may also include any contributions to Rice and to the field of his or her expertise. This document should reflect on the following aspects, as appropriate:
- Role as teaching mentor to colleagues, graduate or undergraduate students.
- Service on department, school, and university committees.
- Work on accreditation requirements.
- Service or other awards from Rice or other entities.
Professional Activities
- Participation in seminars or professional meetings on teaching.
- Preparation of a textbook, lab manual, courseware, etc.
- Description of instructional improvement projects developed or carried out.
Contributions to the Teaching Profession and/or Rice
- Publications, papers delivered, or reviews;
- Service on department, school, and/or university committees;
- Assistance to colleagues on teaching matters;
- Work on curriculum revision or development; and/or
- Work on accreditation requirements.
Honors, Awards, Research, or Recognitions
- Teaching awards;
- Other awards from Rice or other entities;
- Invitations based on teaching reputation to consult, give workshops, write articles and/or
  - Requests for advice on teaching by committees or other organized groups
  - Service or participation in professional organizations
  - Papers delivered, invited talks (within Rice)
  - Papers delivered, invited talks (outside Rice)
Suggestions for selection of evaluators and letter-writers
- Departmental reviewer.
- Extra-departmental reviewer.
- Individuals with knowledge of candidate’s service activities in the university and in the profession.
- Former students.
Any additional relevant information (e.g., any activities of relevance that are not specifically requested; individuals who should not be asked for letters).

The dossier includes: An abstract prepared by the department summarizing the following key information about the candidate’s work:
- Candidate’s department, current, and proposed rank.
- Candidate’s education.
- Candidate’s teaching record at Rice—this is a table which includes the year of the course, the course number and title, enrollment, fraction of load, and the student evaluation Overall Teaching Effectiveness score with % of responses. In addition the department’s assessment of teaching should be given and include new courses implemented along with any other relevant information. This assessment should be based on up to 8 years of the most recent teaching record.
- Candidate’s contributions to Rice and the Pedagogical Practice in his/her field, including publications, papers delivered, reviews, and other relevant works that demonstrate expertise and leadership in pedagogy and engagement with the discipline.
- Candidate’s list of awards and prizes.
- Candidate’s record of service both to Rice University and to the external professional community. Examples include the following: service on departmental and university committees; service in the school, residential colleges and in organizations sponsored by the University and its Alumni Association; educational outreach to the community; engagement or leadership positions in national professional organizations.
- Candidate’s professional history, including start date at Rice and years in rank; if these is an unusual professional trajectory, that information will be put in context.
- Summary of the reasons for Candidate’s perceived fulfillment of the criteria for appointment.
- Summary of department’s process for carrying out review, including vote of faculty and recommendation.

Letters to be included in the dossier:

A letter from the Dean is required.
A letter from the department chair or relevant director is required.
One letter from an internal reviewer is required.
One letter from an extra-departmental reviewer is required.
One or more letters attesting to service to university and department committees, professional organizations and community outreach are required. A maximum of 4 letters addressing service should be included in the dossier.

For external candidates to be considered for Full Teaching Professor the following are required:

Teaching statement of 2-3 pages.
Documentation of teaching, including a list of courses taught and syllabi.
Service statement of 1-2 pages.
Professional activities.
Contributions to the teaching profession (publications, papers delivered, reviews, support colleagues).
Honors, awards, or other recognitions.
Suggested names of up to five evaluators/letter writers (individuals with deep knowledge of candidate’s teaching and service, including names identified as students) and names of individuals who should not be asked for letters.
Any additional relevant information.

Internal reviewers

Two internal reviewers will be appointed, one from within the department and one from outside the department. The internal reviewers should be chosen from full professors or full teaching professors who are able to provide a balanced assessment of the candidate’s teaching and contributions to the pedagogical practice, innovation, curricular development, and mentoring of other faculty.

During its deliberations, the TPC, at its discretion, may ask the internal reviewers to appear before it for further consultation.

Department review

When the full dossier has been compiled, including the reports of the two internal reviewers, the department chair/relevant director will convene the appropriate departmental faculty to review the proposal for appointment. All tenured, tenure-track, and full teaching professors must be involved in the review, following the school’s process.

The following questions should be considered:

What is the quality and impact of the candidate’s teaching?
How has the candidate influenced the pedagogical practice of the department, the school, the university, and/or the profession?
How has the work of the candidate been recognized in the profession? Has the candidate established a regional, national or an international reputation as a leader in pedagogy in the field/discipline?
Has the individual been involved in leadership activities and service in relevant professional organizations? What has been the candidate’s impact within the external professional communities, nationally and internationally?
Does the individual demonstrate a consistently excellent or outstanding record of teaching? This evaluation should, among others, be based on the following: student teaching evaluations, departmental evaluations including peer observation and review, letters from students, prizes and awards for teaching, record in mentoring students, implementation of new courses, novel deployment of information technology for teaching, and/or curriculum development.
Has the candidate made useful contributions to service in the Rice community and in the external professional community?
Does the candidate strengthen the pedagogical mission of the department, the school, and the university and if so, how?
What is the reason for believing that the candidate will continue to be an outstanding teacher and a contributing member of the university community?

Reporting the decision to the candidate and the dean

Once the faculty has voted, the department chair/relevant director will promptly inform the candidate of the decision. However, under no circumstances may the chair/relevant director or anyone in the department/academic unit communicate the specific vote or the votes of any individual to anyone. The chair/relevant director will review the next steps in this process with the candidate.

If the department’s/academic unit’s decision is negative, the chair/relevant director should summarize the reasons for the decision, explain fully the consequences of the decision, and inform the candidate of the right to an appeal on procedural grounds.

Next, the chair/relevant director will write a confidential memorandum to the dean that will:

Summarize the procedures followed in reaching the department’s recommendation, including the vote;
Present the reasons that the department perceives the appointment is merited, or not, including discussion of the quality of the candidate’s teaching, teaching-related service, contributions to curricular enhancements, role in advancing pedagogical best practices in the department, school, or university, the candidate’s service to the department, school, and university, and the national/international reputation of the candidate.
Present his or her own individual evaluation of the candidate’s qualifications for promotion.

The chair/relevant director will include this memo in the dossier and forward it to the dean.

Upon completion of the review, the dean will write a confidential letter to offer his or her evaluation of the candidate and will assess the potential impact of the appointment on the long range goals of the department, the school, and the university. This letter will be added to the dossier and sent to the Provost’s office for review by the TPC.

The TPC, at its discretion, may ask deans to appear before it for further consultation.

Performance evaluation

Chairs/relevant directors are responsible for ensuring that performance evaluations are carried out for each faculty member in the teaching professor ranks yearly.
The performance of teaching faculty should be documented with written evaluations that are reviewed by the department chair/relevant director and the dean.
Performance evaluations will assess teaching performance using indicators appropriate to the discipline and to the level (assistant, associate, full teaching professor), only one of which may be student evaluations.
Departments should involve teaching professors in the evaluation.

Criteria for reappointment
For reappointment, teaching professors must have a record that demonstrates fulfillment of the criteria for the original appointment.

Formal appointment letters for additional contracts are issued by the Dean; the appointment letter must include

a description of the appointee’s teaching duties and other responsibilities,
the effective dates, and
procedures to be used for their annual review and evaluation.

Appeals

Candidates may appeal decisions based on process issues. The candidate must notify the Faculty Senate in writing of her/his intention to file an appeal no later than thirty (30) calendar days after receiving the provost’s letter of official notification that he/she has not been appointed/promoted to the rank of Full Teaching Professor. The candidate must then file an appeal within sixty (60) calendar days with the Faculty Senate’s Appeals and Grievances Committee. The review, which is conducted by the Appeals and Grievances Committee, examines procedural issues only and does not assess the substantive issues having to do with the candidate’s qualifications for appointment/promotion. Once the review is complete, the Appeals and Grievances Committee files a written report of its findings to the president, who subsequently decides what action to take.

Approved by the Faculty Senate on April 7, 2017
Revised August 11, 2017
Revised August 17, 2017
Revised September 8, 2017

6100 Main St., Houston, TX 77005-1827|

Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1892, Houston, TX 77251-1892 |

713-348-0000 | Privacy Policy | Web Accessibility | Campus Carry