(Approved August 22, 2011; Amended January 18, 2016)
Introduction
This page articulates the guidelines that should be used to evaluate and determine the reappointment of a tenure-track faculty member undergoing a mid-point review of progress toward tenure. Recommendations should be considered in conjunction with criteria and standards for reappointment as stated in the most recent edition of the Temple University Guidelines for Review of Tenure and Promotion and school/college individual guidelines. Each school/college must promulgate guidelines and make transparent the purpose and function of the different review levels in the mid-point review process.
Purpose
A tenure-track faculty member being considered for reappointment for an additional term beyond the initial three years is expected to be on a career trajectory that is consistent with the tenure and promotion discipline-specific guidelines in his or her school or college and with the Temple University Guidelines for Review of Tenure and Promotion. In short, the review should answer the question: Is this individual making appropriate progress toward a tenure and promotion review that is likely to have positive results? 1
In addition to evaluations that occur on an annual basis and/or when appointments are renewed, tenure-track faculty members are required to be reviewed in the fall of the full third year of service (the mid-point review year) regarding his or her progress towards tenure.
A mid-point review should cover the entire period since the initial appointment with a purpose of providing constructive feedback and suggestions for a tenure-track faculty member’s career development. Thus, such a review provides the faculty member with a to-date assessment of his or her performance in teaching, scholarly/creative work, and service.
Although discipline-specific information will largely inform the review process, a mid-point reappointment review will take into account the faculty member’s proven teaching effectiveness and research/creative work productivity and potential. For TAUP schools and colleges the tenure standard is articulated in Article 11 D (3): “With due consideration to the academic needs of the department and/or College or School, consideration for tenure shall be based primarily on outstanding performance and continuing promise of outstanding performance as a faculty member.” For schools that are guided by the Faculty Handbook, a tenure candidate is expected to be outstanding in two categories.
The mid-point review should thus include an evaluation of departmental, collegiate, and university educational goals and a determination of the likelihood of the faculty member achieving those goals.
Suggested Procedures
Mid-point review evaluations normally occur in the fall of the third full year of service on the tenure track. A checklist for compiling reappointment documentation as well as reappointment deadline information is available in the Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs section of the TUportal Forms Channel.
Both the Dean and Department Chair must provide a copy of his/her written evaluation to the faculty member. As part of his or her assessment, the Dean is contractually required to consult with appropriate faculty committee(s) in the department and/or school/college. Departmental and/or School/College review committees must have at least two, and preferably three tenured members.
As a general rule, the evaluation of the candidate will take into consideration requirements for tenure and satisfactory progress to that goal. It is not, however, common, nor recommended, to solicit external evaluator letters at the third year review. A survey of other universities reveals that in some cases a candidate is asked to provide a self-assessment of his or her progress to-date.
Schools/colleges may or may not wish to follow this practice in promulgating their own guidelines.
Terms of Reappointment/Non-Reappointment
Reappointments shall be for a definite term of one, two or three years. As a matter of practice, the following considerations guide the reappointment decision:
- Three year reappointments to candidates who are clearly “on track” for tenure;
- Appointments of fewer than three years suggest that there is some concern about the faculty member’s teaching/instruction and/or research/scholarship/creative work. The Dean in his or her discretion will decide upon consultation with the appropriate faculty bodies where a one or two year extension is advisable;
- Candidates whose performance is so questionable that a positive tenure decision appears impossible to attain should be recommended for non-renewal and should receive a one-year terminal reappointment.
Deadlines
The Dean’s Office will provide a copy of his or her evaluation along with other required documents to the Office of the Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs. The Provost will make an independent judgment on the case and will make a recommendation to the President who will issue a contract in accordance with the above guidelines.