Counseling, Leadership, Adult Education and School Psychology Department
This statement has been developed to conform to University Policy and Procedure Statement 8.10 and the Policy and Procedure Statement on Tenure and Promotion adopted by the College of Education (COE PPS 8.10). It also draws directly from the CLAS department document “Educational Administration & Psychological Services Dept.: Annual Review of Faculty Policy”
Additions, deletions and/or modifications have been made within this statement in an effort to meet the faculty performance expectations unique to the Department of Educational Administration and Psychological Services, while remaining in essential accord with the University and College policies. Faculty should refer to the College document and UPPS 8.10 for details regarding the procedures used outside of the Department.
The purposes of this promotion and tenure document are to: 1) establish the criteria of the department for tenure and promotion, together with the policies and procedures for their application; 2) enhance the overall quality of work of all faculty in the CLAS department by establishing guidelines for the significance and importance of various professional endeavors with regard to tenure and promotion; 3) provide direction to new faculty to help them successfully negotiate the tenure/promotion process within the department, college, and university; and 4) assist in the exercise of good judgment by those responsible for peer evaluation, as tenure and promotion recommendations are primarily based on the judgments of departmental and external reviewers. The following is an updated list of sources relevant to these criteria.
  1. PPS 8.01, Development/Evaluation of Tenure – Tenure-Track Faculty
  2. PPS 4.04 Teaching and Research or Creative Activity
  3. PPS 4.05 Maintenance and Improvement of Quality in Teaching
  4. PPS 8.10 Tenure and Promotion Review
  5. Faculty Handbook, Texas State University, 14th edition
  6. The Texas State University System (TSUS) Rules and Regulations
The three areas of professional activities (teaching, scholarship/creative, and service) are addressed in this document. It is expected that quality teaching in conjunction with quality scholarly/creative endeavors must be consistently demonstrated by all faculty. The faculty in the CLAS Department recognize that scholarship encompasses both research and creative activities. While service activities are important and vital to the department, these are less important in achieving promotion and tenure than teaching and scholarship activities.
Criteria for Review: Teaching, scholarly/creative activity, and service can include a variety of activities. Some of those activities are noted below. Those provided are meant to serve as examples only and should not be viewed as the total universe of possibilities.
Relationship between annual review and tenure/promotion review: While these two processes are not necessarily related, successful candidates for consideration of tenure and promotion typically have exceeded expectations during annual reviews.
In all evaluation of faculty performance, both summative and formative, our Department values:
·        cross-disciplinary and traditional scholarship and activities; we recognize that the worth of cross-disciplinary scholarship may be more difficult to assess because it crosses rather than is situated within traditional academic disciplinary boundaries, but we are committed to faculty assessment identifies and credits faculty members for the importance of such work.  
·        all faculty work, including that which integrates scholarship, teaching, and service; we recognize that faculty work that such integrative work may not fit easily within the traditional categories of scholarship, teaching, and service, but are committed to faculty assessment that identifies and credits faculty members for the importance of such work.   
·        equally collaborative and individual scholarship, teaching, and service; we recognize that the tradition in the academic workplace has been to place more value on individual accomplishments, but we are committed to faculty assessment that identifies and credits faculty members for the importance of both collaborative and individual work.
·        faculty work reflecting their diversity of personal and work histories, academic backgrounds, professional allegiances, and interests; we are committed to faculty assessment that identifies and credits faculty members for the worth of their unique expression of academic work through scholarship, teaching, and service.
The teaching of each faculty member in the CLAS department is evaluated by the Personnel Committee and the Department Chair on the basis of scholarly preparation, course development and planning, dedication, peer evaluation through classroom visits, and student evaluation. Teaching is understood to include not only classroom performance, but other factors as well, such as preparation, syllabi and other course materials, graded assignments, effective testing, staying current in the discipline, student academic and career advising and curriculum improvement.
Candidates for promotion to associate professor and/or tenure should be observed in teaching by one or more tenured faculty in the department.  The candidate’s teaching should be observed 3 times during their first year, but no more than twice per semester, and at least once during each subsequent year prior to application for promotion. Active observation and mentoring should be provided to the candidate, if needed. Program coordinators are responsible for assigning tenured faculty to observe the candidate. 
In preparing for review, candidates for tenure and promotion will include at a minimum the items listed below to document teaching excellence. Candidates for tenure and for promotion to associate professor should include teaching material collected since initial date of employment. Candidates for promotion to full professor should include teaching material collected since their latest promotion.
  1. Student quantitative and qualitative feedback.
  2. Course syllabi, assignments and examinations for newly developed courses.
  3. Documentation of any other achievements relevant to teaching, such as awards, funded grants and/or curriculum development.
  4. Peer observations of teaching performance.
  5. Published materials on teaching techniques.
  6. Letters, awards, and other evidence of teaching excellence.
  7. Number and nature of courses taught each semester [Reviewers should recognize that some courses may place a heavier demand on faculty time and effort than others.]
  8. Number of completed doctoral dissertations and master’s theses supervised. [Consideration should also be given to the number of doctoral dissertation and master’s thesis committees on which the candidate has served as a member and on the number of seminar papers directed.]
  9. Number of student advisees [Appropriate consideration should be given to the faculty member’s expected or assigned contributions to advising, mentoring, recruitment, retention, and timely graduation of students.]
  10. Annual reviews of teaching.
Scholarly/Creative Activities
Scholarly/creative activities are critical and required of all Texas State faculty. A faculty member’s contribution will vary from one academic or professional field to another, but the general test to be applied is that the faculty member is engaged consistently and effectively in scholarly/creative activity of quality and distinction. Evidence of high quality and distinction can be established through careful consideration of productivity and quality. Collaboration with colleagues is viewed as a means of enhancing scholarly/creative activity. The quality of the results and the relative contributions of the participants who engaged in collaborative efforts should be considered.
Scholarly/Creative Activity includes the three principal areas of research, scholarship, and creative endeavors, and requires consistent updating and extension of one or more areas of study within the professional life of the faculty member. At the department level, scholarship/creativity will be evaluated through a process of peer and chair reviews. While the specific type of scholarship/creativity in which a faculty member engages may vary by discipline, in keeping with the continually evolving nature of research approaches in education, accepted forms may include, but are not limited to applied, theoretical, action, collaborative, pedagogical (instructional), and clinical research.
Publication in selective venues is the primary form of documenting scholarship. Peer-reviewed works will receive greater emphasis when tenure and promotion decisions are made, as will publication in more competitive journals within the candidate’s discipline, as defined by the journals’ acceptance rates. Recognizing and respecting the different academic cultures of the various disciplines represented within the department, tenured faculty within each program area must evaluate the relative value of specific venues. The department expects balance with respect to authorship (only, first, group) and depending on discipline. Venues should be sought that will result in the greatest recognition by colleagues; therefore, more emphasis will be given to national/international works than to others. 
Scholarly/Creative Activity Examples
What follows are examples of scholarly/creative activities in which a faculty member might engage. These examples, while listed in order of relative importance, may be subject to interpretation in light of the candidate’s accomplishments.
1.                  Productivity. The productive scholar is consistently involved in scholarly/creative activity. Productivity may be demonstrated by the following examples of documentation for scholarly/creative activity effectiveness. The number and quality of:
a.       refereed journal articles published;
b.      books published;
c.       book editorships of scholarly significance published;
d.      book chapters published;
e.       monographs published;
f.        non-refereed journal articles published in journals that are recognized by the department as premier outlets for scholarship/creative activity ;
g.       refereed presentations at national/international meetings;
h.       refereed presentations at state/regional/local meetings.
2.                  Scholarly/creative activity may also be demonstrated in a variety of other means. These include, but are not limited to the number of:
a.       external and internal grant proposals that support teaching, scholarly/creative activity, and leadership/service. Candidates will be credited with achievements in proposal submissions and grants awarded, with greatest weight given to grants awarded. Internal grants, while important in many ways to faculty goals, will receive less consideration than external grant activity in appointment, tenure, and promotion decisions;
b.      journal editorships;
c.       member of editorial board and/or invited review of journal manuscripts;
d.      tests or assessment instruments developed;
e.       software and/or multimedia products developed;
f.        internet products developed;
g.       non-refereed electronic publications;
h.       technical reports published;
i.         abstracts and/or proceedings of professional presentations published;
j.        grant proposal reviews conducted;
k.      book reviews published.
3.                  Quality. The quantity of published material is not sufficient evidence of scholarly/creative activity. The quality of each endeavor must be carefully documented and is oftentimes more important than quantity. Quality refers to the insights, significance, and importance of the work to a degree indicated by the stature of the venue in which it is published, or for creative works, the importance of the venue. Research grants solicited and those awarded on the basis of scholarly merit of the proposal are also indicators of quality scholarly/creative activity. Other evidence may include citations in scholarly and professional books and journals; the salience of venue stature; use of findings by policy makers, practitioners or judicial bodies; reprinting of documents; abstraction for other publications; or other forms of recognition by colleagues in the field.
Scholarly/Creative Activity Documentation Examples
a) copies of published research, scholarship and creative endeavor that appeared in regionally or nationally recognized refereed (or similarly reviewed for academic quality as defined in departmental criteria) monographs, and journals.
b) copies of invitations where a faculty member has been invited to produce, exhibit, and/or perform juried creative work;
c) copies of presentations and/or papers delivered/presented at colleges or universities, professional meetings, conventions, and conferences;
d) evidence of collaboration with colleagues on local and other campuses in activities oriented toward making a contribution to the advancement of knowledge, methodology, or development of a discipline (e.g., letters explaining the nature and extent of the collaboration);
f) evidence of internal and external grant procurement activities and awards (e.g., copies of proposals and award letters);
g) evidence of recognition received for regional, national, or international for contributions to a particular field of study;
h) evidence of copyrights or patents on works produced, e.g., letters of documentation;
i) evidence of editorial responsibilities (i.e., documentation that delineates the responsibilities) as well as edited papers for journal publication, books, or other scholarly activity;
j) evidence of directed research projects commissioned by outside agencies;
k) evidence of creative work commissioned by outside agencies;
l) Annual reviews of scholarly/creative activity
Leadership and Service
Faculty should have a commitment to the University and their professions through participation in leadership/service activities, such as leadership/service to the university [leadership/service on committees charged by the Texas State Faculty Senate or by an administrator at the Dean level or higher]; leadership/service to the college [service on a committee charged by the College of Education Faculty Advisory Council or by the Dean of the College of Education]; leadership/service to the department [service on a committee charged by the chair of the department]; and leadership/service to the profession or to higher education in general [leadership/service appointments made by officials representing professional organizations, public schools, cities, states, or the nation]. 
Specific program areas within the department may have differing expectations regarding appropriate service activities. However, candidates seeking tenure and promotion to associate professor, while bearing in mind the requirements of “good citizenship” within the institution and their profession, should prioritize their activities to reflect the university’s priority on scholarship and teaching.
Faculty members are expected to participate in the conduct of department, college, and university activities; in appropriate professional organizations in their field; and in professional leadership/service to schools, colleges, universities, and other agencies in the community. Evidence of superior leadership/service may be established through careful consideration in the areas of productivity and quality. While leadership/service activity is expected of each faculty member, leadership/service shall not substitute for expectations in teaching or in scholarly/creative activity.  Leadership/service expectations of untenured, assistant professors seeking promotion to associate professor and tenure will be lower than those for associate professors seeking promotion to full professor.
Productivity. Evidence of a faculty member’s productivity is manifested by the extent of participation on departmental, college, and university committees; in professional organizations at the local, state, or national levels; in outreach activities related to student settings; and in service to scholarly/creative activity, such as serving as editor, reviewer, consultant, speaker, and panel member. The level and frequency and stature of participation will be considered.
Quality. Leadership/service involves working creatively with others so that professional knowledge has an impact on the schools, colleges, professional organizations, community agencies, and other institutions. The impact of leadership/service on the group served is of critical importance in evaluating quality of leadership/service.  
Leadership/Service Activity Examples
Faculty members engage inservice when they:
a)      serve on departmental, school, and university committees;
b)      assume administrative responsibilities relating to both the academic and support services of their respective program and/or department; these responsibilities should primarily be reserved for associate and full professors;
c)      conduct institutional studies;
d)      sponsor student activities organizations;
e)      conduct organized student-recruiting activities;
f)        serve on an outside program review team or as an external reviewer of faculty credentials;
g)      serve as an officer of local, regional, national, or international professional organizations;
h)      coordinate or chair a major professional conference;
i)        serves as member of examination committee for professional licensure and certification;
j)        consult with government, business, and industry  
Leadership/Service Activity Documentation Examples
a)      lists and descriptions of activities;
b)      copies of materials produced;
c)      letters from groups served; 
d)      evidence of any forms of recognition for service;
e)      annual reviews of leadership/service.
For the purposes of this document, the following definitions apply:
    1. The department personnel committee is made up of tenured faculty who are paid at a rate of fifty percent or more from faculty salary dollars budgeted to the department.
    2. A department recommendation refers to the recommendation of the personnel committee. This is to be distinguished from the recommendation of the departmental chair.
Eligibility for Tenure
Typically, the probationary period prior to the awarding of tenure is six years, so that when tenure is granted it begins with the next year's contract. Faculty with notably outstanding records may apply for tenure without prejudice before the end of the six-year probationary period.
At the end of the sixth year, a decision will be made as to whether or not the faculty member will be awarded tenure. Faculty members who are not awarded tenure may remain in their position for one additional year following their tenure decision.    
Faculty members in a tenure-track position may not move to non-tenure track status and then back to tenure-track status unless this change in status resulted from independent searches for non-tenure and tenure-track positions.
Neither leaves of absence nor part-time appointments count as part of the probationary period. A written agreement, mutually satisfactory to the candidate and to the university, must be made at the time of initial appointment to a tenure-track position whether to credit or to exclude previous years of full-time teaching experience toward the probationary period.
Faculty members applying for promotion to associate professor must apply for tenure at the same time and vice versa.
A faculty member may not be tenured by default or because of failure to recognize that the time for tenure or termination has arrived. Lecturers and part-time faculty members are not eligible for tenure consideration, although academic administrators may be an exception to the part-time rule (see Faculty Handbook).    
Successful candidates for consideration of tenure and promotion will typically have exceeded expectations during annual reviews.
Tenure track faculty who have primary responsibility for the care of a newborn child or an adopted or foster child younger than five, or other family member in need of such care, may request that the tenure clock be suspended for one year during the probationary period (see PPS 8.10 for specific explanation).  
Responsibilities of Candidates for Tenure and/or Promotion
Candidates must verify and sign the candidate for tenure and/or the candidate for promotion information form (see PPS 8.10).
Candidates must provide documentation that supports quality of teaching, scholarly/creative activity and leadership/service as defined in the above department criteria. This documentation should be arranged and presented in the order of categories prescribed by the Texas State Vita (see PPS 8.10).
The Texas State Vita must document all achievements and highlight those that apply to the probationary period or time period since the last promotion.
Candidates must adhere to the timeline described herein for the tenure and promotion process.
Tenured candidates who are not approved for promotion may request a meeting scheduled by the chair to develop a program of professional development to enhance the likelihood of future promotion.
Candidates who are denied promotion or tenure may file an appeal or grievance following the procedure specified by the university (refer to paragraph 86 of PPS 8.10).
Responsibilities of the Department Personnel Committee And Chair
The department will provide each faculty member a copy of the department and college criteria for tenure and promotion.
The department chair and/or appointed members of the personnel committee will counsel the candidate about including relevant materials and organizing supporting documents.
The program coordinator will assign each tenure-track faculty member two senior faculty members mentors to advise the candidate on the effective presentation of their tenure and/or promotion application file. When possible, one of the mentors will be an associate professor who recently and successfully was tenured at Texas State and the other will be a full professor. 
The chair and personnel committee are responsible for a thorough evaluation of the candidate's documentation. The chair and a selected representative from the candidate’s particular program will describe the total scholarly/creative work of the candidate and assess its impact on the expansion of knowledge in the discipline. This is particularly critical for promotion to full professor.
While the chair and personnel committee review the documentation presented to support the existence of sustained quality scholarship by the tenure/promotion candidate, external peer review is required for candidates seeking tenure and/or promotion. 
External evaluations focusing on scholarly/creative activity and professional leadership at the national level will be obtained from appropriate disciplinary peers for candidates for promotion and/or tenure. These external evaluations may not be used as the sole basis for rejection of a candidate, but will be used in a holistic sense when making judgments about the candidate’s qualifications.
a.       The candidate, the department’s Personnel Committee, and the department chair will identify and invite three external reviewers of the candidate’s accomplishments in scholarly/creative activity.
b.      External evaluations will be solicited from persons of repute in the candidate’s field.
c.       Each external reviewer will be asked for a statement regarding his or her acquaintance with the candidate.
d.      Guidelines for completing the external evaluation will be furnished to each external reviewer.
e.       The department chair will deliver candidate materials to the external reviewers at least 30 days prior to the date these external evaluations are needed by the candidate.
f.        The candidate will provide two or three exemplars of published works with the curriculum vita and other materials sent to the reviewers.
g.       Each external evaluation received becomes a part of the candidate’s portfolio.
On the forms to be forwarded with each candidate's application, the personnel committee will briefly and clearly state the criteria for evaluation. The personnel committee's comments (Form 3) and the chair's comments (Form 4) should leave no doubt as to the action desired by the department. For candidates whose applications have been approved by the department, the comments should fully develop a rationale for recommending the candidate, leaving no doubt about the candidate's suitability and importance to the future development of the department.
Review Process
The chair should review each candidate's documentation with the candidate before it is made available for review by the personnel committee. No additional items may be included in the documentation without the chair's and candidate's permission.
The chair will make the candidates' documentation available for review by the personnel committee.
The personnel committee will meet to discuss the candidate’s application materials. Only members of the Department's personnel committee are eligible to be present during the voting procedures and to vote on the tenure and/or promotion of any candidate.
The department chair will preside over the meeting. At the conclusion of the discussion, and with the chair presiding in a non-voting capacity, the personnel committee will vote by secret ballot to either recommend or not to recommend the candidates for tenure and/or promotion.
A tie vote is a vote not to recommend.
If on first vote a candidate is not approved for tenure or promotion, any member of the departmental personnel committee may request a second vote to reconsider the decision. Such reconsideration will be given if approved by a two-thirds majority of the departmental personnel committee present and voting.
The department personnel committee will vote by ballot first to approve or disapprove each candidate for tenure. Members must be present to vote.
The committee will then vote for promotions, using a ballot to indicate approval or disapproval for each candidate.
The chair and a member of the personnel committee selected by the other members of the committee should conduct independent counts of the ballots before the results are announced. Any discrepancy between the two counts should be resolved before the results are announced to the personnel committee.
A member of the personnel committee will enter the results of the voting on Form 3, along with evaluative remarks that include a statement showing how this candidate's qualifications specifically meet or exceed the departmental and college criteria established for tenure and/or promotion from the personnel committee's perspective.
The chair is responsible for seeing that the comments accurately reflect the discussion about the candidate.
Following the verification and the official recording of the votes, the chair will destroy all ballots and tally sheets.
The chair will provide an independent “chair’s recommendation” for each candidate on Form 4 and add evaluative comments, including a statement showing how the candidate's qualifications specifically meet or exceed the departmental and college criteria established for tenure and/or promotion from the chair's perspective. The chair will inform the departmental personnel committee of these recommendations, with explanations as appropriate, within three class days of the chair's decision.
The chair will verify that information forwarded about each candidate to the college review group is correct.
The chair will attach a copy of the Tenure and Promotion Tracking Form (Form 8) to each application and will forward the approved applications and documentation with a copy of the department's evaluation criteria to the dean of the college.
Within three class days of the decision by the chair, the chair will notify the candidate of the action. The following two decisions require written notification:
    1. If the candidate is denied by either the personnel committee or the chair, but not both, the application is forwarded to the college review group.
    2. If the candidate is denied by both the personnel committee and the chair, the application is denied unless the candidate files an appeal within the specified period of time.   
If the candidate has applied for promotion, the chair must schedule a meeting with the candidate to discuss the department's evaluation. Reasons for denial of promotion shall be explained. The candidate will be advised in creating a program of professional development to enhance the likelihood of future promotion, providing that the denial of promotion does not result in a terminal contract.
Timeline for Tenure and Promotion Process  
The timeline will make allowances for weekends, by moving due dates to the next business day when relevant.
By May 1, the department chair will submit to the departmental faculty and the college dean a list of faculty members eligible for promotion and tenure review.
By August 15, eligible faculty members must:
a) notify the department chair in writing of their intention to apply for tenure and/or promotion. Faculty who fail to inform the chair by August 15 will not be considered in the year's cycle.
b) complete and submit an up-to-date Texas State Vita and a promotion and/or tenure form to the department chair. The candidate should also submit documentation of teaching, scholarly/creative activity and leadership/service as defined in department and college criteria. Additional supporting material, dated appropriately, may be submitted before the formal meeting of the review group. Faculty who do not submit material by August 15 will not be considered during the cycle.
By September 15, the chair will send a copy of the list of candidates to the personnel committee and college dean.
By November 15, the department personnel committee will have reviewed each candidate's application and documentation, voted and submitted recommendations to the department chair.
By December 1, the department chair will submit his/her recommendations, along with those of the personnel committee, to the dean.
By February 9, the college review group and the dean will have completed the review of all candidates, and the dean will submit his/her recommendations, along with those of the review group, the personnel committee, and the department chair to the provost.
By April 30, the provost will notify candidates and the president will notify the chancellor and the board of the recommendations.
By June 1, the final board action will be publicized.
Procedures for Appeal
Candidates who are denied promotion or tenure may grieve the decision by following the procedures in Academic Affairs PPS 8.08.
Communication of Information about Denial of Tenure or Promotion
Each person in the review and evaluation process has a professional responsibility to treat information that evaluates another's work as confidential. All votes in the process must be kept confidential.
Faculty members who are denied tenure are not entitled to a statement of the reasons upon which the decision is based (Section 4.28 of Chapter V of the Rules and Regulations of the Board of Regents, Texas State University System).
Faculty members who are denied promotion at any level should be informed regarding the reasons for denial by the responsible administrator, either the chair, the dean, or the provost. It is the responsibility of the candidate to request a meeting to determine the reasons for denial.
Last update: January 21, 2009
Department name changes only: December 15, 2010