Guidance for Department Chairs – FPC Draft Redesign

On this Page:

Advice and Guidance
The First Year
The Second and Third Years
The Fourth and Fifth Years

Advice and Guidance

When a tenure-track hire is made, we have every hope and expectation that this colleague will ultimately be successful in attaining tenure. The formal tenure review process occurs in the colleague’s sixth year – the distant future, as seen from the first year of a faculty appointment. However, the reviewed work requires ongoing attention from the candidate and the department. Later success depends on groundwork laid in the early stages.

At the time of tenure review, the Faculty Personnel Committee (FPC) bases its recommendation on many factors documented in the dossier. Among the most important information in the tenure review file is the written input from the candidate’s department. The department letter provides unique perspective on all of the areas on which tenure decisions are based: Teaching, Advising and Mentoring, Professional Engagement, and Service. The Personnel Committee relies on the department letter for the following:

Assessment of teaching effectiveness, via direct classroom observation from the perspective of experienced faculty in a given discipline, and student course evaluations, to which only the Department Chair or the person asked to write the department letter has access. The letter should provide a sense for how the candidate is fostering an inclusive learning environment (see “Teaching Effectiveness at Kalamazoo College” under Guiding Principles).
Assessment of contributions to student advising and mentoring with respect to department majors and minors, teaching assistants, and departmental SIPs; contributions to mentoring faculty or staff colleagues in the department or division, as appropriate — from the perspective of experienced department members.
Assessment of scholarly engagement from the viewpoint of established scholars in the discipline (see “Defining Professional Engagement at Kalamazoo College” under Guiding Principles) and comments on the candidate’s forward-looking plan
Assessment of service activities in the department—ranging from informal collegial cooperation to formal roles and responsibilities—from the perspective of experienced department members.

The purpose of this document is to provide practical guidance for departments to follow during the pre-tenure years. Ideally, the pre-tenure experience in the department is one of mentorship. The department review statements can be thought of as a documentation of the mentoring process. As such, department review statements will not come as a surprise to the candidate because the assessments contained therein, both positive and negative, will have been addressed and hopefully resolved in the course of the mentoring relationship. Everything we suggest here is motivated by the Committee’s desire for department review statements to reflect the high standards we as faculty members set for ourselves both in faculty excellence and in faculty collegiality.

FPC understands that each department works according to its own patterns, personnel and history. In some cases, the department responsibility for mentoring and evaluating pre-tenure colleagues will fall entirely to the chair. In departments with several senior members, the responsibility might be shared. In any case, the document that the department provides for the candidate’s review should reflect views that are representative of the department as a whole. We leave it to each department to establish a workable mechanism for providing this representative voice. We ask that the review letter state clearly the manner in which departmental input was solicited and included in the letter. We emphasize that departments have a responsibility to the pre-tenure colleague to provide consistency and continuity as the role of chair passes from one person to another.

In preparing the department letter for candidates, the chair or other colleague designated by the department will have access to:

candidate’s CV
candidate’s personal statement
course evaluations
candidate’s professional engagement materials
previous department reappointment and tenure review statements
record of workload beyond regular teaching
any supplementary materials the candidate wishes to include as these may pertain to department workload

Chairs do not have access to:

committee, faculty, and student letters because of the privacy expectations of those letters
FPC’s tenure or promotion statement to the Provost because these are confidential (delete – because these might contain quotes from or summaries of external reviews)
external reviews and summary of reviews
advocate’s statement

The First Year

At the end of the first year of a tenure track appointment, the work of a tenure-track faculty member is reviewed by FPC. A negative review might result in the candidate not being retained at the end of the initial two-year contract. At the same time, concerns and suggestions for improvement must be voiced at this review in order for the candidate to know clearly what will be expected in future reviews. In the first-year review the committee is looking for

Evidence that the colleague is becoming an effective teacher, including establishing an inclusive classroom environment (see “Teaching Effectiveness at Kalamazoo College”)
Evidence that the candidate is establishing a plan for, and trajectory of, externally validated professional engagement work (see “Defining Professional Engagement at Kalamazoo College” under Guiding Principles and “How to Approach the Forward-looking Plan“ under File Preparation > Guidance for Candidates)
Evidence that the colleague is engaged in the department.

Over the course of the first year at the college, a department can help the new colleague establish a record that merits a positive first-year review by attending to each of the following areas of faculty responsibility:

Teaching

FPC reads student course evaluations with great care. The department review statement can provide context by pointing out special circumstances, historical trends concerning student response to a given course in the department, etc.

Guidance on how to help a colleague foster an inclusive learning environment can be found in the “Teaching Effectiveness at Kalamazoo College” document of the Guiding Principles section of the FPC website.

Professional Engagement

To promote mentorship and support of a new colleague’s professional engagement, departments find it useful to establish an explicit dialogue to monitor and promote progress in areas of scholarship, creative activity or performance, community engagement, etc. In each review, FPC holds the candidate to the standard of “evidence of externally validated scholarship or other forms of professional engagement.” Following the model of teaching mentorship, FPC suggests several intentional conversations each year about professional engagement, which may include discussions about

planned or ongoing research or creative projects
plans for dissemination of professional work (e.g. conference presentation or other public presentation, publication, exhibition, performance)
timelines
research support in the form of grants, etc.
if applicable, ways in which the candidate’s scholarly or creative work might promote or exemplify inclusivity; FPC recognizes that not every faculty member’s work will directly or obviously address inclusivity, and we encourage candidates and chairs to note when it does

As it reflects these conversations, the departmental review statement will be most helpful in providing documentation of the candidate’s professional engagement trajectory. The FPC sections on “Defining Professional Engagement at Kalamazoo College” and “How to Approach the Forward-looking Plan“ are intended to help with these conversations.

Service

Because first-year faculty are typically exempt from committee service, engagement in the life of the department is an indicator of success in the responsibility to serve the interests of the College. At the same time, we emphasize that departments have a responsibility to the candidate to protect them from becoming involved in department activities and tasks to such an extent that professional engagement activities are unduly limited. If applicable, the statement might also note ways in which the candidate’s service exemplifies or promotes inclusivity. FPC recognizes that not all faculty service will directly or obviously address inclusivity, and we encourage faculty and chairs to note when it does.

The Second and Third Years

At the end of the third year of a tenure track appointment, the work of a tenure-track faculty member is reviewed by FPC. This review is the final pre-tenure review. As such, it serves as a basis of the reappointment decision at the end of the second two-year contract. We have a responsibility to the candidate to state as clearly as possible any and all potential obstacles to tenure that exist in the record as it stands at the time of this review. In the third-year review the committee is looking for:

Evidence that the colleague is establishing a record of sustained effectiveness as a teacher, including establishing an inclusive classroom environment (see “Teaching Effectiveness at Kalamazoo College”)
Evidence that the colleague is engaged in advising and mentoring students within the department and beyond
Evidence that the candidate has established a record of externally validated professional engagement work (see “Defining Professional Engagement at Kalamazoo College” under Guiding Principles) and is refining their goal-oriented trajectory (see “How to Approach the Forward-looking Plan“ under File Preparation > Guidance for Candidates)
Evidence that the colleague is engaged in service to the department and the College.

In the time between the first and third year reviews, a department can help the pre-tenure colleague establish a record that merits a positive third-year review by attending to each of the following areas of faculty responsibility:

Teaching

To promote mentorship and support of a new colleague’s teaching, the Provost requests that departments arrange several visits each year to the classrooms of pre-tenure faculty. Multiple visits allow department colleagues to observe the results of comments and suggestions from earlier observations. We emphasize the importance of continued classroom visits and feedback. Through these visits, the department review statement will point out areas of new or continued strength, discuss ways in which the candidate has successfully responded to earlier issues, and identify and address issues that have not been satisfactorily resolved since the first year review.

Professional Engagement

As the department dialogue about the pre-tenure colleague’s professional engagement progresses,
important issues for discussion during the second and third year are:

Appropriate goals regarding number and scale of professional engagement projects planned for completion by the time of the tenure review.
Time frames: how long does it take to go from application or submission to appearance in targeted dissemination outlets?
Do plans need to be adjusted so that there is a record of externally validated work at the time of the third year review? As an example, a large book project might need to be split into smaller article-sized pieces to ensure that the work attains successful peer review and publication.
Discipline-specific issues regarding dissemination of professional engagement work (e.g. some fields put more importance on conference proceedings, while others put more value in traditional journal articles, public exhibition or performance, while others put most importance on book publication).
Discipline-specific issues regarding external validation and peer review for each of the colleague’s research projects: Is a given volume of conference proceedings peer reviewed, and in what manner? What level of peer review is constituted by the editorial policy of a given book publisher? Is a given book chapter peer reviewed, and in what manner? In the absence of formal peer review, what form of external validation is conventional for the work? Is community engagement work public-facing and if so, what measure of external validation is typically available?
If applicable, ways in which the candidate’s scholarly or creative work might promote or exemplify inclusivity; we recognize that not every faculty member’s work will directly or obviously address inclusivity, and we encourage faculty and department chairs to note when it does.

The most useful department letter will reflect these conversations. The FPC sections on “Defining Professional Engagement at Kalamazoo College” and “How to Approach the Forward-looking Plan“ are intended to help with these conversations.

Service

The review file will contain statements from committee chairs concerning the committee service of the reviewed colleague. The department statement is the primary source of information about service activities within the department. In addition, the department statement might provide insight into college service as well, especially as it pertains to overall workload. If applicable, the statement might also note ways in which the candidate’s service exemplifes or promotes inclusivity. FPC recognizes that not all faculty service will directly or obviously address inclusivity, and we encourage faculty and department chairs to note when it does.

The Fourth and Fifth Years

Typically, tenure-track colleagues submit their tenure files for external review in the summer preceding the sixth year of employment at the College. This timetable, which allows for completion of the tenure review before the March meeting of the College Board of Trustees, results in a review that considers the candidate’s work during the first five years at the College. For this reason, the fourth year is a critically important time for forward-looking conversations in the department. An ultimately successful tenure decision depends upon a thorough stock-taking of the tenure case as it stands at this time, by the candidate in dialogue with the department.

Any work necessary to strengthen the tenure case would need to be undertaken at this time. In the tenure review the committee is looking for:

Evidence that the candidate has a record of sustained effectiveness as a teacher, including establishing an inclusive classroom environment (see “Teaching Effectiveness at Kalamazoo College”)
Evidence that the candidate has a record of sustained engagement as an academic advisor and mentor to students
Evidence that the candidate has a body of externally validated professional engagement work and plans for continued engagement beyond tenure (see “Defining Professional Engagement at Kalamazoo College” under Guiding Principles and “How to Approach the Forward-looking Plan“ under File Preparation > Guidance for Candidates)
Evidence that the colleague contributes, substantially and effectively, to the department and to faculty governance.

Teaching

Professional Engagement

As the department dialogue about the pre-tenure colleague’s professional engagement progresses, important issues for discussion during the fourth and fifth year are:

Time frames: Are the plans made in previous years on target? What needs to be done to ensure that article submissions are accepted in final form before the tenure review?
Do plans need to be adjusted so that there is a body of externally validated professional engagement at the time of the tenure review? As an example, a large book project might need to be split into smaller article-sized pieces to ensure that the work attains successful peer review and publication.
Discipline-specific issues regarding external validation and peer review for each of the colleague’s research projects: Is a given volume of conference proceedings peer reviewed, and 6 in what manner? What level of peer review is constituted by the editorial policy of a given book publisher? Is a given book chapter peer reviewed, and in what manner?
Optional: If applicable, ways in which the candidate’s scholarly or creative work might promote or exemplify inclusivity; we recognize that not every faculty member’s work will directly or obviously address inclusivity, and we encourage faculty to note when it does.

Service

The tenure file will contain statements from committee chairs concerning the committee service of the reviewed colleague. The department statement is the primary source of information about service activities within the department. At the tenure review, FPC will look to the department letter for evidence that the colleague is a substantial and effective contributor to the overall work of the department. In addition, the department statement might provide insight into college service as well, especially as it pertains to overall workload. Optional: If applicable, the statement might also note ways in which the candidate’s service might exemplify or promote inclusivity. FPC recognizes that not all faculty service will directly or obviously address inclusivity, and we encourage faculty to note when it does.

Revised July 2019; October 2023