3.7 REAPPOINTMENT, PROMOTION, AND TENURE

3.7.1 Eligibility

3.7.1.1 Normal Appointment Schedule

Normally, the first regular appointment to the faculty is for three years and two subsequent appointments are each for two years. Modifications to this schedule are possible for those with prior teaching experience in term appointments or at other institutions.

3.7.1.2 Eligibility for Consideration for Tenure

A faculty member must have a regular appointment to be considered for tenure. A faculty member must also hold the appropriate terminal degree (Ph.D., M.F.A., M.B.A. plus C.P.A. or C.M.A., M.S.E. plus State licensure). Some departments have alternative requirements for tenure. Detailed policy descriptions for these positions may be found in the Provost's office.

A teacher shall have taught full-time at Calvin College for seven full years in a series of appointments with the rank of instructor or above before he or she is eligible for tenure. In the case of teaching appointments where new faculty members have significant prior experience at the college level as a full-time professor, exceptions to this stipulation may be made by the provost in consultation with the department. These exceptions must be made according to the following stipulations:

1. They may allow for tenure reviews sooner than the seven-year norm but no sooner than the third year of employment at Calvin College.
   
2. Tenure reviews may occur no sooner than the seventh year of total full-time college experience.
   
3. If a professor comes to Calvin already tenured by another institution, he or she may be reviewed for tenure at the end of the initial three-year appointment.
   
4. If a professor comes to Calvin with prior experience but not tenure, he or she must have at least one review and reappointment before a tenure review.

Any further foreshortening of the tenure review process or the granting of tenure upon appointment must be made by the Board of Trustees upon recommendation of the president.

A faculty member may request that the timetable for tenure consideration be extended beyond the seventh year to take account of specific personal or family circumstances. The length of any such extension will be determined by the faculty member in consultation with the department and provost, but normally will not exceed two years. Circumstances warranting an extension include, but are not limited to, pregnancy and childbirth, disability or extended illness, and the demands of caring for children or an ill or injured family member.

Reduced-load appointees or those whose service have been a combination of full-time and reduced-load should refer to Section 3.3.4.6. for modifications to this schedule.

3.7.1.3 Eligibility for Promotion in Rank

Promotion decisions are to be made in conjunction with decisions for reappointment and tenure, or in the case of promotion to full professor, in conjunction with a post-tenure review.

1. Promotion to Associate Professor
   
   Normally, assistant professors who have served at least five years at that rank will be reviewed for promotion in conjunction with their review for reappointment with tenure. Over the normal course of an entry-level appointment, this review occurs in year seven of one's appointment.
   
   An earlier review for promotion to associate professor, after the minimum of five years served at the assistant professor rank but prior to a tenure review, will be allowed if it is approved by both the sponsoring department's chair and its academic dean. In such a case, this early review for promotion normally would take place on the occasion of an assistant professor's review for a second reappointment. Review for reappointment with tenure would follow two years later.
   
   
2. Promotion to Professor
   
   Associate professors with at least five years of service at that rank are eligible to be reviewed for promotion to professor at the next occasion for reappointment or post-tenure-review. The first post-tenure review may occur earlier than the sixth year subsequent to reappointment with tenure in order to accommodate a review for promotion to full professor.

3.7.2 Procedure

3.7.2.1 Recommendations for Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure

Each year the president is required to present to the Board of Trustees a recommendation in support of all the faculty members who are up for reappointment or reappointment with tenure. To assist the president in making an evaluation, each department chair concerned is to submit, in accord with the procedures noted below, a recommendation for those faculty members in his or her department who are up for reappointment and/or promotion.

3.7.2.2 Reappointment Procedure

The list of persons who are to be considered for reappointment shall be compiled by the Provost's Office. Initial regular appointments normally last three years; followed by two, two-year reappointments. During the seventh year of appointment, a faculty member normally will be considered for reappointment with tenure.

Persons who are to be considered for reappointment (and their department chairs) shall be informed of this by May 1 in the academic year preceding the year in which they are to be considered for reappointment.

Persons who are eligible to be considered for promotion shall be informed of their eligibility by the provost by May 1 of the academic year preceding the year they become eligible.

These notices are to be sent by the provost.

The deans shall send a letter each fall to all members of the faculty, listing candidates for reappointment and tenure and inviting personal letters of recommendation citing the candidate's fulfillment of college expectations in the areas of teaching, scholarship, advising, and service. These letters will be made available to the Professional Status Committee, and the dean will inform the candidate of the general contents of any such letters.

The chair of the department shall compile the reappointment dossier (as described in ) 3.7.2.3 and send it to the academic dean of the division of which his or her department is a member by October 15 of the year in which a person is eligible to be considered for reappointment. The chair should meet with the candidate prior to this date and provide the candidate with a written copy of the chair's summary of the dossier. The candidate may examine the dossier (except for confidential documents) before the chair forwards it to the dean.

After consulting with the provost, the dean shall submit his or her recommendation to the Professional Status Committee. The Professional Status Committee shall make a recommendation to the president.

The dean shall summarize the recommendation of the Professional Status Committee and send it along with his or her own advice to the president. This shall be in the form of a written recommendation and summary evaluation.

The president will make the final decision concerning all reappointment recommendations and shall convey them, along with the recommendations of PSC and the deans, to the Board of Trustees. Normally the president will affirm the decisions of the Professional Status Committee. In the unusual case where this is not so, the president will report this to the Professional Status Committee and the department with an explanation. Recommendations for reappointment with tenure shall be conveyed to the Board of Trustees normally at the February meeting of the Board.

Persons who have been considered for reappointment shall be informed of the president's recommendation prior to the publication of the President's Report to the Board of Trustees. They shall receive a copy of the dean's written recommendation to the president.

3.7.2.3 The Reappointment Dossier

The department chair should provide the information listed below, at least as much of it as is available, to the academic dean when recommending a person for reappointment.

3.7.2.3.1 The Chair's Written Summary of the Dossier

This shall include the following:

1. An evaluation of the candidate with respect to the norms for evaluation (Section 3.7.2.4).
   
2. The chair's summary of any department recommendation.

In the case of reappointment with promotion or tenure, this shall include a statement as to whether a majority of tenured colleagues (a majority of full professors in the case of promotion to professor) support reappointment with promotion or tenure.

This summary must be shared with the candidate and so should be written so as to preserve the anonymity of the evaluators mentioned in 3.7.2.3.3 below.

3.7.2.3.2 Results from Student Evaluation of Teaching and Advising

The chair shall include both the numerical summaries of student evaluations and copies of all student forms that contain comments from the most recent semesters (normally at least the previous two). (The Provost's Office will add these to the dossier after it is received by the dean if the chair so requests.)

3.7.2.3.3 Confidential Evaluations of the Candidate

3.7.2.3.3.1 Evaluation by Colleagues

1. The department chair should include a personal, confidential evaluation.
   
2. An evaluation by colleagues in the department.
   
   In the case of reappointment without tenure, the chair should include written evaluations from no fewer than three members of the department on regular appointment who are familiar with the candidate's teaching and/or scholarship. If there are fewer than three members on regular appointment, including the chair, the dean and chair may solicit additional evaluations from professors outside the department who are familiar with the candidate's work. The chair should provide information on how these evaluations were solicited.
   
   In the case of reappointment with tenure, the chair should obtain written evaluations from each tenured colleague. These evaluations must include a clear statement as to whether the colleague supports reappointment with tenure. If there are fewer than three tenured professors in the department, including the chair, the dean and the chair may solicit additional recommendations from tenured professors in other departments who are familiar with the candidate's work.
   
3. Reports on class visits by the chair or by a colleague appointed by the chair or a staffing committee of the department.
   
4. A report by the chair or designated colleague on some form of interview or discussion between the candidate and a member or members of the department dealing with that candidate's integration of faith and learning. The form and timing of this discussion is to be determined by each department according to its needs.
   
5. Copies of all departmental explanations of faculty expectations (e.g., the departmental statement on scholarship).

3.7.2.3.3.2 Evaluation by Students

1. Written evaluations by at least two department majors and at least two nonmajors.
   
   The student evaluation instrument, or some modification of it, may be used for this purpose.
   
   
2. Written evaluations of at least three alumni who have majored in the department.
   
   Again, the chair may wish to use the student evaluation instrument or a modification of it. If an evaluation is obtained by telephone conversation, a summary of the conversation should be furnished.
   
   In order to secure representative responses, the chair may supplement names suggested by the candidate with names of other departmental majors and, when appropriate, students selected randomly from recent class lists. In each instance the chair will describe the method by which evaluations were solicited.
   
   
3. Advising evaluation report.

3.7.2.3.3.3 Evaluation by External Referees

When deemed appropriate by the chair, dean, or candidate, written evaluations of the candidate's scholarship by persons outside the college.

3.7.2.3.3.4 Evaluation by Colleagues from Other Departments

The dean shall include any signed comments received in response to the invitation to all members of the faculty to submit personal recommendations citing the candidate's fulfillment of college-expectations.

3.7.2.3.4 Evaluation by the Candidate

1. The candidate's current vita.
   
2. A written self-evaluation and professional plan describing recent and planned initiatives in the areas of teaching, scholarship, advising, and community service. The self-evaluation should review accomplishments during the period of the current appointment, making specific reference wherever appropriate to goals identified in previous reviews. The professional plan should look forward to the next period of appointment and identify important areas for continuing professional development and specific goals to be attained in each of the four areas. (See Section 3.8.)
   
3. Each department shall develop and periodically evaluate a procedure for enabling a candidate to submit for each reappointment evidence that the candidate's teaching and scholarship reflect a growing maturity in the synthesis of the candidate's faith and discipline. This should include at least the following.

For faculty who are being considered for reappointment without tenure, the candidate's 750 to 1,250-word statement dealing with the following issues:

• How has the candidate worked on integrating faith and learning in teaching and scholarship?
• Where and why has the candidate found such integration particularly fruitful and rewarding or particularly difficult and problematic?

For faculty who are being considered for reappointment with tenure or promotion to full professor, a 1,500- to 2,500-word statement by the candidate dealing with issues of faith and learning. Recognizing that there is neither consensus nor closure on these issues, and that the integration of faith and learning is an ongoing task, the candidate is asked to address the following questions:

• How do you go about integrating faith and learning in the classroom? Does your Reformed perspective shape the content and pedagogy of your courses? If so, how? (Refer to specific courses in your response.) What elements within your discipline make the task of integrating faith and learning in your teaching particularly fruitful and rewarding or particularly difficult and problematic?
• How do you go about integrating faith and learning in your scholarly activities? Does your Reformed perspective affect those activities? If so, how? What aspects of your discipline make the task of integrating faith and learning in your scholarship particularly fruitful and rewarding or particularly difficult and problematic?
• What is the place of your discipline in a Reformed Christian liberal arts college?

4. A statement by the candidate in regard to his or her compliance with requirements for signing the Form of Subscription, church membership, and Christian schooling.
5. Copies of publications (papers) and information about access to larger publications such as books.
6. For reappointment with tenure, a letter from the candidate's church council indicating that the candidate is a member in good standing of a congregation that meets faculty membership requirements.

3.7.2.3.5 Copies of the Dean's Recommendation for Each Previous Appointment.

These statements may be obtained from the Provost's Office.

In cases where the appointment history is atypical, please consult with the academic dean.

It is also possible that not all of these categories of information will apply to each staff member. For example, the appointee may not yet have had departmental majors or students who are alumni. Chairs should provide as much information as they can and indicate why some of the information requested may be missing.

3.7.2.4 Evaluation Guidelines

Evaluations of the performance of candidates for reappointment should center on areas of teaching, scholarship, advising, and service as described in Section 3.6. The chair's recommendation should include the following sorts of evidence that the candidate meets standards.

3.7.2.4.1 Teaching

Chairs should indicate clearly how the evidence of in-class evaluations, other student evaluations, peer visits, and curricular and pedagogical contributions demonstrates excellence in teaching in an appropriate range of courses. The candidate's record as a teacher should be compared with his or her past performance, with departmental and college averages, and when appropriate with the evaluation of instructors for other sections of multiple-section courses. Special consideration should be given to effective teaching of core and introductory courses and to integration of Christian perspectives.

3.7.2.4.2 Scholarship

Chairs should select carefully, from a broad range of means of assessment, the most appropriate way to assess and document the candidate's contributions. These should include colleagues' assessments, the candidate's account of his or her progress in achieving goals articulated in previous professional plans and a list of publications as well as presentations at professional and disciplinary conferences or analogous professional activities in fields such as the Fine Arts. When appropriate, these means may be supplemented by independent letters of support from colleagues at other institutions, letters from publishers or editors concerning previous publications or work-in-progress; evidence of external grants applied for; and awards and prizes given by disciplinary or professional associations. The goal in each case should be to show, by reference to both college and departmental documents, how the candidate meets expectations for scholarly achievement.

3.7.2.4.3 Academic Advising

Chairs should provide specific evidence of informed and effective service to student advisees. At their discretion, they may include written comments by past and present advisees or other materials demonstrating effectiveness in this role.

3.7.2.4.4 Community Service

Service to various communities, including contributions to the department, the college at large, students, the church and Christian schools, and the civic community. Chairs should assess the extent and significance of the candidate's contributions to the college community, the church, the scholarly community, and other appropriate constituencies.

The following principles should be used when measuring faculty members against these expectations.

1. No faculty member is likely to be strong in all the major and minor categories indicated and only few can be strong in most of them. We believe, however, that a good faculty member should have demonstrated interest, competence, and activity in a substantial number of them.
2. Individual differences among faculty members as well as differences among their particular assignments make it inevitable that the weighing of the several categories will vary from person to person. However, effective teaching is expected of all faculty members, and, within the categories of advising and service to various communities, the direct-on-campus contributions are more important for most individuals than the off-campus contributions. We emphasize, however, that all of the major categories will be considered seriously in the evaluation of any faculty member. Specifically, this means that an individual performing well in only one category and hardly at all in the others is unlikely to receive favorable evaluation. What is desired is good performance in all major areas with excellence in at least one of them.
3. An extremely important component of the guidelines is the "faith and learning" issues. By this emphasis, we do not aim at any sort of institutional or canonized set of fixed theories to be known as the Calvin position. We do, however, believe it to be an important goal of the Calvin faculty to work faithfully toward a richer integration of the various disciplines wreformed Christian view of God, people, and the world. This our commitment and our heritage surely require. At the least, this entails progress by individuals and departments in defining crucial faith-and-learning questions, in testing answers to them, and in publishing some of their findings - to one another, to students, and to others outside the immediate academic community. We believe that our mandate to be concerned with the Christian commitment and professional excellence to the staff requires that we take both faith and learning with great seriousness. For this reason, we believe that a faculty member under review should present positive evidence of such integrative theorizing, in teaching, in scholarship, and in service to the various comminutes.
4. These guidelines are intended primarily to apply to review at the time award of tenure is considered. However, these guidelines are also used by the committee when considering appointments and reappointments, as well as during post-tenure review. Clearly, the manner and extent to which they apply at these different stages will vary; one may expect that they will be more stringently applied to individuals as they near consideration for tenure appointment.

We recognize that there are many variables which enter into the evaluation process, and that many of these variables are difficult to specify and measure precisely. We are fully aware of the human fallibility which enters into these decisions, but also recognize that judgments can and must be made. Continuing efforts will be made to sharpen the evaluation process as much as possible.

We must emphasize that our intent at all stages is the improvement, not the dismissal, of faculty members. Guidelines must be means of self-evaluation as well as of mutual evaluation within departments for the purpose of staff growth, including that of tenured members. Another intent of the guidelines, of course, is to emphasize that reappointment and tenure are not automatic, but must be earned.

In summary, these amplified guidelines are intended to assist all faculty members, once appointed, to make suitable progress in their profession at Calvin, and to assist the Professional Status Committee and the administration in determining whether in fact such progress is taking place.

3.7.2.4.5 Criteria for Promotion to Professor

The expectation at Calvin remains that those who attain tenure will also attain the rank of professor; professors should not be an elite and exceptional class. Nonetheless, promotion comes as a consequence of a review process, beginning in the department and carried through the Professional Status Committee and the Board of Trustees (see section 3.9.3).

The college has, historically, used the phrase "normal progress" in the four areas of faculty expectation as a consistent review criterion, and such progress is best defined within a department. Each department must, within the guidelines established in the Handbook for Teaching Faculty, articulate its own standards for assessing (and weighing the relative importance of) the four areas of faculty expectations: teaching, scholarship, service, and advising. Each department has, for example, defined what it counts as scholarship, and each department applies those criteria when recommending candidates for tenure.

At a review for promotion to professor, similar assessments are made regarding work accomplished since the tenure review. The proportional contributions in the four areas may change (e.g., someone with adequate scholarship and exceptional service may, following tenure, shift to doing less service work and become a more productive scholar), but the department continues to carry the primary responsibility for observing and assessing the totality of a colleague's progress.

Expectations established by the Handbook for Teaching Faculty also continue to apply. Those expectations include, most importantly, the fact that "Teaching is the primary vocation and responsibilty of the Calvin College faculty" (Section 3.6.3.1).

The Handbook for Teaching Faculty also states, "Underlying specific departmental guidelines are two general principles; all members of the Calvin faculty are expected to be actively engaged in the scholarly or professional work of their discipline, and all faculty members are expected to demonstrate that their scholarly work forms part of an appropriate plan for professional development" (Section 3.6.3.2).

Consequently, should a colleague's teaching or scholarly contributions have fallen below minimal expectations for the department by the time of the scheduled promotion review, the department would barring other exceptional contributions, probably not recommend promotion to professor at that time.

3.7.2.5 Board Interviews of Candidates for Reappointment

The Board of Trustees shall interview those candidates recommended by the president for tenure. The Board shall also interview those candidates recommended by the president for reappointment on the occasion of their first reappointment. (However for candidates whose initial appointment is for one year, this interview shall occur at their second reappointment.)

As a basis for the interview and as a way of introducing themselves to the Board, candidates are requested to provide, along with the biographical data, written personal statements indicating how they seek to integrate their faith with their respective disciplines. Among the areas in which questions may be asked are these:

• Personal commitment to Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord
• Relationship to the institutional church
• Motivation for choosing Calvin as a place to teach
• The place of her/his discipline in a Christian liberal arts institution such as Calvin
• Relationship of faith and learning
• The way in which Reformed and Christian commitment has shaped her/his approach to the particular area of expertise
• Elements of the Reformed tradition which have shaped the approach to her/his discipline
• The relationship between Christian scholarship and academic excellence - Relationship to students and colleagues

Reappointments to the faculty are made by the Board of Trustees and submitted to the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church for ratification.

3.7.2.6 Failure to be Reappointed or to Receive Tenure

3.7.2.6.1 Failure to Receive Tenure

Should a candidate fail to achieve tenure, the following two possibilities shall exist:

1. Termination of services, to take effect at the end of the academic year which follows the academic year in which the final decision on tenure is made.
   
2. If a faculty member does not receive tenure after seven years, he or she may, if it is in the best interest of the college, be granted additional appointments of no more than two years each. Such appointments could be renewed indefinitely. During this period a staff member would be free to leave the college at the end of any year. Such an appointment would not preclude reconsideration for appointment with tenure at some later date. Any reconsideration for appointment with tenure shall be initiated by an academic dean or the provost.

3.7.2.6.2 Non-Renewal of Non-Tenured Faculty Members

In the case of non-tenured appointees on regular appointment, a written notice of non-reappointment or intention not to recommend reappointment to the Board of Trustees shall be given to the instructor by the provost before December 15 if the appointment will be terminated at the end of that academic year. If a person has taught full- time at Calvin more that two years, a serious effort should be made to give one year's notice of non-reappointment.

3.7.2.6.3 Appeal Process

If a negative recommendation on tenure is made at any stage of the process (by the department, dean, Professional Status Committee, provost, president, or Board of Trustees), the faculty member shall be informed of this negative recommendation, shall be given the reasons for it if requested, and shall have the privilege of requesting reconsideration by the person or body making the negative recommendation and of submitting evidence which he or she believes will be helpful toward an adequate reconsideration.

In case of non-renewal of appointment, other than one in which the appointment was designated as terminal in the letter of appointment, the person affected shall have the right of appeal to the president or, through the president, to the Executive Committee or Board of Trustees, whichever best suits the time or circumstance.

3.7.2.6.4 Failure to Receive Synodical Ratification

Should the Synod fail to ratify the appointment of a person or the granting of tenure to a person by the Board of Trustees, the staff member shall be retained on the staff for the succeeding academic year, during which time the Board of Trustees will reconsider its recommendation, and report to the next Synod. This is not to be construed to mean that further consideration for reappointment or appointment to tenure by the following Synod is thereby precluded.

Last updated Tuesday, May 22, 2007