7. FACULTY EVALUATION
Evaluation of faculty performance advances three distinct purposes:

• clarifies institutional expectations for performance and provides timely feedback for faculty performance in teaching, advising, scholarship, service, and congruence with the mission of the institution;
• provides a basis for decisions concerning rank, retention and non­renewal, tenure, and similar status decisions;
• aids faculty and administrators in planning jointly for the best use of faculty gifts and talents.

Evaluation is understood as an ongoing process that addresses the conduct of class sessions, advising appointments, scholarship, and a variety of other activities as set forth below.

7.1 CODE OF CONDUCT FOR FACULTY EVALUATION
Both the university community and the individual are affected by the results of evaluations, especially those concerning tenure and promotion. It is recognized that in the evaluation process self-interest will be a prominent factor, information will be incomplete, and objectivity will be difficult to attain. These realities call for certain standards of conduct which promote the common interest, generate trustworthy information, and minimize bias. Good standards of conduct make it possible for all persons involved in the evaluation process to faithfully perform their duties, to trust that others will faithfully perform their responsibilities, and to accept the results with respect.

7.1.1 PRINCIPLES WHICH APPLY TO ALL PARTICIPANTS
The university strives for a consensus between faculty, administration, and the board of trustees in evaluation decisions and develops procedures which foster the collegiality which is appropriate to the university's mission and goals. Because mutual respect of participants and concern for personal and institutional needs are core values at Whitworth, these decisions will be based on principles of inquiry rather than on adversarial principles. The following principles apply to all participants in evaluation of performance, especially those who participate in tenure and promotion decisions –applicant, mentor, colleagues, departmental peers, department chairs, deans, FPTC, FRC, dean of faculty, president, and board of trustees:

• Rationale for recommendations and decisions will be directly supportable with respect to the published standards.
• Evaluation will be based upon a body of evidence.
• At each stage of the evaluation process, participants have the obligation to assure that the evidence used is relevant and substantial.
• During the evaluation process all evaluators (peers, department chairs, administrators, trustees) should avoid giving assurances as to the specific outcome of the evaluation process.
• themselves from voting for recommendations or decisions in that case.
• To encourage candid evaluation, protect individual reputations, and allow for objectivity and fairness, all participants will use discretion in communication.
• Evidence of faculty performance as well as any disciplinary information (such as findings on sexual harassment) shall be included as evidence at every stage of the evaluation process.
• Hearsay or information submitted anonymously will not be admitted to the evaluation process.
• Information considered, discussion, and vote(s) during the evaluation process will be kept confidential within the institution (although all participants should be aware that confidentiality cannot be assured if a decision becomes the subject of an agency or court proceeding.
• Communication of the recommendations and decisions to those directly affected will be direct and candid, yet sensitive to personal well-being of faculty under evaluation.

7.1.2 PRINCIPLES WHICH APPLY TO SPECIFIC PARTICIPANTS

Candidates for Evaluation

• Shall provide full documentation as required for each decision process,
• Shall avoid inappropriate discussion of the evaluation with members of the Faculty Promotion and Tenure Committee or Faculty Review Committee;
• Shall provide additional information promptly if requested;
• Shall receive clear, candid feedback on their performance based on established standards and evidence at regular intervals specified in the faculty handbook.
• May respond to evaluation decisions at each stage of the evaluation process with written responses to be made part of the candidate’s evaluation file going forward. Candidate responses will be considered in subsequent evaluation decisions.

Mentors, Peers, and Colleagues

• Are encouraged to help the candidate to understand the process of evaluation.
• May help the candidate for evaluation in building an effective case,
• Shall avoid improper communication (e.g. exerting undue influence, lobbying, gossiping, wheedling) with those directly involved in the evaluation and recommendation.

Department Chair or designee

• Shall engage in frank, comprehensive, and ongoing discussion with the candidate regarding the candidate’s performance in relation to the standards for the decision to be made.
• Shall help the candidate to understand the process of evaluation.
• Shall draft written communication at each stage of the evaluation process which summarizes fairly the performance of the faculty member based on established standards and evidence.
• Shall communicate the results of developmental evaluations orally and in writing to the candidate and forward these results of the written evaluation to the Dean of Faculty.

Evaluation Committee Members (FRC and FPTC)

• Shall refrain from informally discussing any case with persons outside the committee at any stage of the process. However the committee may delegate to its members the task of interviewing a member of the Whitworth community to seek additional information;
• Shall disclose any potential conflicts of interest to the committee.
• Shall recuse themselves from voting upon recommendations or decisions in any case for which they have not studied the evidence
• Shall excuse themselves from discussion and voting in FPTC or FRC when they believe that objectivity would be extremely difficult.
• May, without conflict of interest, assist department chair and peers by sharing observations and information relevant to a faculty member’s performance.
• Shall have one point of influence in evaluation decisions. Members who choose to write a peer evaluation letter for a candidate must recuse themselves from the committee deliberation and decision.
• Shall jointly produce a written summary of the rationale for the committee's recommendation, to be kept in the applicant's personnel file.
• Shall submit their recommendation to the Dean of Faculty.

Dean of Faculty

• Shall serve as a resource for the candidate for evaluation (through such activities as annual evaluations, ongoing discussions of the candidate’s professional development, and interpretation of institutional standards, collecting of evidence).
• Shall ensure that evaluations occur according to the principles and standards outlined in the faculty handbook.
• Shall speak before the FRC and FPTC about specific candidates for evaluation.
• Shall convey the written recommendations of the FPTC and FRC to the President.
• Shall submit a separate written recommendation to the President, i.e. either accepting or rejecting the recommendation of the committee.
• Shall report to the FPTC and FRC committee chairs any recommendation at variance with that of the committee.
• Shall report to the FPTC and FRC official communications with the candidate concerning the specific evaluation decisions of the Dean, the President, and the Board of Trustees.
  

The President

• Shall report in writing to the Dean of Faculty that the President has adopted the recommendations of the Dean of Faculty, or the reason(s) for decling to adopt the recommendations of the Dean.
• The President or Dean of Faculty (if designated by the President) shall report recommendations on promotion and tenure from the President, Dean, and the Committees to the Academic Affairs Committee of the Board of Trustees.
• If the President decides not to recommend a candidate for promotion or tenure the President’s decision, accompanied by a written statement of the rationale for this decision ends the evaluation process. (Subject to the candidate’s right to appeal set forth in Section 7.7.)

The Board of Trustees

• Shall adhere to principles established in this Code of Ethics and Principles for Faculty Evaluation, shall keep evidence and information confidential, and shall report back to the President or Dean of Faculty (if designated by the President) its deliberations and decisions.
• All evaluation decisions of the Board of Trustees are final and binding and shall constitute the final and binding decision of the institution with respect to issues of promotion, tenure, retention, non-retention, termination or dismissal.

7.1.3 TIMELINE AND SCHEDULE FOR FACULTY EVALUATION, PRE-
TENURE REVIEW, TENURE, PROMOTION, AND QUADRENNIAL
REVIEW
The timeline for evaluation will be specified on the back of the faculty member’s first faculty contract. This schedule may be revised in writing by mutual consent of the faculty member, the Dean, and the appropriate evaluation committee chair.

7.1.4 RESOLUTION OF ALL OTHER PROCEDURAL AMBIGUITIES FOR
FACULTY EVALUATION, PRE-TENURE REVIEW, TENURE, PROMOTION, AND QUADRENNIAL REVIEW
No handbook is unambiguous in every circumstance and no procedure is so universally applicable that it cannot cause problems in unique cases. In such cases the Faculty Executive, in consultation with the Dean, has the delegated authority to resolve disputed procedural issues, determine which procedure applies to a specific decision or dispute, or extend deadlines and stay proceedings during an evaluation, or appeal process.

7.1.5 VARIANCE OF EVALUATION CRITERIA OR PROCEDURES IN
UNUSUAL CASES
There may be cases where the evaluation criteria or procedures specified in this section clearly cannot be applied, or cannot be applied without serious distortion of their intent, due to
the unusual nature of a faculty member’s duties or unusual circumstances of his or her appointment. In such cases, the Dean of Faculty, in consultation with the department chair and the chair of FPTC or FRC as applicable, may adapt the criteria or the procedures as appropriate, staying as close as possible to their spirit and intent. The variance shall be stated in writing and copies provided to the candidate and to the FPTC or FRC as applicable.”

7.2 CRITERIA FOR FACULTY EVALUATION
Just as our mission is holistic–seeking to promote the intellectual, personal, and spiritual development of the whole person–the dimensions involved in faculty evaluation are holistic. These dimensions divide naturally into four categories for faculty performance. The first criterion involves considerations of the faculty member’s collegial character, professional conduct, and of his or her congruence with the mission of Whitworth. This criterion is essential for continuing employment as a regular faculty member at Whitworth. The second, third, and fourth criteria are rooted in the historic expectations of faculty performance and address the faculty member’s competence and his or her contribution to Whitworth, the broader academy, and society at large. Since teaching is the paramount responsibility of faculty at Whitworth, effectiveness in this area will be weighted most heavily in evaluation of faculty performance. These performance criteria apply to all stages of the faculty evaluation process for regular faculty, although expectations for the level of achievement for these standards vary depending upon rank and experience.

7.2.1 Mission, Conduct, and Collegial Character: Evidence of congruence with the mission of Whitworth, standards of ethical professional conduct, and collegial character.
7.2.1.1 Mission: Whitworth faculty will provide evidence of a vital commitment to the spirit and objectives of Whitworth’s Christian educational mission. (defined in Section 5.1.2).
7.2.1.2 Professional Conduct: Whitworth faculty will model professionalism. Faculty are expected to be self-monitoring and make all reasonable efforts to fulfill their contractual duties (Section 6). They are also expected to conform to guidelines on Standards of Conduct and Professional Ethics (Section 5.2, 5.3, and 5.5).
7.2.1.3 Collegial Character: Faculty members are expected to model respectful and constructive interaction—even in dissent—in their dealings with students, staff persons, fellow faculty, and administrators (Section 5.1).
7.2.2 Teaching and Advising: Evidence of superior teaching and effective advising designed to achieve positive student outcomes. This category includes all of the following dimensions of the teaching enterprise:
7.2.2.1 demonstration of the skills in the craft of teaching, and a commitment to ongoing assessment and cultivation of one's skills in this craft; and
7.2.2.2 demonstration of an ability to cultivate student interest in the subject matter and a high degree of student effort and engagement; and
7.2.2.3 evidence of respect for student differences as well as a capacity to listen to students’ viewpoints and manifest a sympathetic understanding of their needs; and
7.2.2.4 evidence of awareness of the relationships of one's discipline to the liberal arts, other academic disciplines, and the professions; and
7.2.2.5 evidence of accessibility and competence for advising students on academic and vocational matters; and
7.2.2.6 evidence of sufficient academic breadth and professional versatility to permit the candidate to respond appropriately to future changes in departmental offerings, to new university curricular thrusts, and to national trends in the candidate's discipline; and
7.2.2.7 the ability to communicate possible implications of Christian convictions for one's discipline, and possible implications of central claims in one's discipline for Christian faith and life.

7.2.3 Scholarship. Evidence of an ongoing program of professional study, scholarly production, and self-improvement in conformity with the definition of scholarship adopted by Whitworth faculty (Section 6.4). In practice, certain types of scholarship will be more prominent in some disciplines than in others. Likewise, forms of peer-valued public dissemination will vary some among the disciplines and professions. To insure sufficient flexibility and integrity in the evaluative process, each department (or school) develops and maintains a description of: 1) the types of scholarship, 2) the particular kinds of public scholarly products, and 3) the types of peer review that are most common and valued within their discipline, including interdisciplinary scholarship, and scholarship that emphasizes the integration of faith and learning; 4) a sense of the trajectory of a productive scholar in their discipline at institutions like Whitworth; and 5) distinctions between the expectations for Track I, II, and III faculty. The description must be approved by the Faculty Research and Development Committee before it is used as a standard for evaluating faculty in that department (or school). This evaluation will consider the various dimensions of the scholarly enterprise including:

7.2.3.1 evidence of an ongoing program of professional study.
7.2.3.2 evidence of professional engagement with one’s academic discipline and/or profession.
7.2.3.3 evidence of scholarly products that have been publicly disseminated.
7.2.3.4 evidence of scholarly products that have been publicly disseminated and subject to peer review.

7.2.4 Service: Evidence of a commitment to service to the university and community.

While course instruction and the scholarship that supports it are the primary expectations of regular faculty, there is also a legitimate expectation that faculty will contribute service within the institutional networks that support the vocation of a faculty member. Evidence of service to the institution is essential for favorable evaluation and advancement, but all of the following forms of service are valued by Whitworth.

7.2.4.1 Service to the institution:
All regular faculty members are expected to assume reasonable service roles in the operation of the institution. Specific roles will differ some by individual and over the course of one's career.

1. All regular faculty are expected to attend specified department and/or school, and Faculty Assembly meetings.
2. All faculty are expected to participate on committees and task forces at the various levels of the university—department/school, faculty, and campus-wide.
3. As needed and equipped, faculty are expected to assume faculty leadership positions.
4. Also valued are such roles as assisting the Office of Admissions in student recruitment, being an advisor to student organizations, participating in student enrichment activities, and serving as a mentor to faculty colleagues.

7.2.4.2 Service beyond the institution:

A. Whitworth values service to the larger academy to which it is connected and to the web of scholarly, professional, and accrediting bodies that support higher education. Individual faculty members may be selected at times to take leadership roles in these bodies.
B. In keeping with our mission of engaging the culture and community, Whitworth encourages all of its members, including faculty, to find ways of serving in our surrounding communities and/or the churches that minister to these communities. In some departments this type of service has particular institutional benefit and may be reckoned as part of one’s service to Whitworth.

7.3 EVALUATIONS FOR REGULAR FACULTY WITHOUT TENURE
A vital and professionally competent faculty is a key to the academic strength of the University. Evaluations are conducted under the supervision of the Dean of Faculty. Expected duties for regular faculty are described in sections 5 and 6 of this handbook. Criteria for faculty development and performance are outlined in section 7.2.

Minimum standards for retention of untenured faculty are specified in section 7.3.1. Evaluations may result in non-renewal of the faculty contract. Policies and procedures for non-renewal are specified in Section 10.3 of the Faculty Handbook.

7.3.1 STANDARDS FOR FACULTY RETENTION
Indispensable competencies — The following activities are expected of all regular faculty who wish to be retained at Whitworth. The following standards do not by themselves constitute a sufficient basis for promotion or tenure and they presuppose congruence with the mission, professional conduct, and collegial character outlined in section 7.2.1.

7.3.1.1 Teaching and Advising—Faculty present material which is current, accurate, and appropriate to the course; demonstrate an ability to express themselves clearly and concisely; demonstrate an ability to cultivate student interest in the subject matter and a high degree of student effort and engagement; demonstrate an appreciation and respect for students and their individual needs and differences; reveal a capacity to listen to students and respond to students’ viewpoints and needs; communicate an awareness of the discipline’s relationship to the liberal arts and to a Christian worldview.
7.3.1.2 Scholarship—Faculty remain current in their field by means of an ongoing program of professional study and engagement with their respective profession; have depth of scholarship sufficient for their own area of specialization and breadth sufficient for understanding the full implications of a liberal arts education.
7.3.1.3 Service—Faculty promote the objectives and programs of Whitworth; work cooperatively as a member of their department; exercise responsibility in attending faculty meetings, assigned committees, and other service obligations.

7.3.2 ANNUAL EVALUATION OF UNTENURED FACULTY
To assist faculty members in their personal and professional growth, Department Chairs and/or the appropriate School Dean are expected to meet annually with untenured faculty (Tracks I, II, and III).All untenured regular faculty members are reviewed by the Department Chair and appropriate School Dean (if applicable) at the conclusion of each academic year. Annual evaluations are based on data submitted by faculty members to their supervisor on the Faculty Activity Report (Appendix C.1), the Faculty Professional Development Plan (See Appendix C.2), student evaluations, review of professional papers, publications, creative work, and performance. Faculty members are responsible for keeping their Department Chair apprised of their ongoing professional plans and accomplishments.

Department Chairs will complete an Annual Faculty Evaluation Form (Appendix C.3) based on the evidence from student evaluations, classroom visits, observations by faculty colleagues, and evidence provided by the faculty member. Department Chairs will share this evaluation with the untenured faculty member in a conference. The Department Chair and faculty member under review will submit the original copy of the signed Annual Evaluation Form to the Dean of Faculty. The faculty member under review may also append comments to the evaluation form. This process must be completed by May 31st.

Annually, Department Chairs are asked for a recommendation regarding the reappointment of any untenured faculty member. See Appendix C.4 for the Faculty Reappointment Form.

The Chair should comment specifically in his or her Annual Faculty Evaluation on the progress being made by the faculty member to attain the goals and objectives associated with the faculty member’s track, years of service, and status. Any problems or concerns in the attainment of goals and objectives outlined in the university reviews should be documented in the annual evaluation (for example, if significant concerns about teaching have been raised in previous evaluations, Chair and/or Peer Teaching Evaluations may be gathered again as in the Pre-Tenure or Quadrennial review).

Of particular note for Track I faculty in the year following the pre-tenure review will be the development of the faculty member as a scholar. The Department Chair should meet with the faculty member for a discussion of progress being made toward a successful tenure application.

7.3.2.1 FIRST YEAR EVALUATION (TRACK I, II, and III)
The First Year Evaluation requires a mid-year review in addition to activities outlined for the Annual Review.

Mid-year Evaluation
During the first semester of appointment, the Department Chair will visit two class sessions, and review student evaluations from all courses at the end of the term. In January the Department Chair or designee will review these materials with the first-year faculty member and complete and submit the Recommendation for Faculty Reappointment (Appendix C.4). The form will be submitted to the Dean of Faculty by February 15th. A reappointment decision will be communicated to the faculty member by the Dean of Faculty no later than March 15th.

First Annual Evaluation
At the end of the first year the Department Chair will evaluate first year faculty using the Annual Faculty Evaluation procedure by the Standards for Faculty Retention articulated in section 7.3.1. The annual review must be completed by May 31st.

7.3.2.2 SECOND YEAR EVALUATION (TRACK I, II, and III)
This review typically is developmental and is to be completed at the end of the second year of faculty service. For the faculty member who is new to the professoriate, this review will focus primarily on the faculty member’s development as a teacher and contributor to institutional life; plans for scholarly development will also be addressed. Reviews for those already acclimated to faculty life will focus on growth in all four of the Criteria for Faculty Evaluation described in the Faculty Handbook (7.2). In the event that the faculty member applies for promotion or participates in a pre-tenure review in the 2nd year of employment, those reviews replace the departmental assessment. The assessment will be comprised of the following elements:

1. An initial conference between the faculty member, the Department Chair, and the Associate Dean of Faculty Development in which the entire review process and its long-term significance is explained at the beginning of the spring semester during the second year of appointment.

2. The annual Faculty Activity Report and Faculty Development Plan, along with an updated curriculum vita.

3. A complete set of student evaluations gathered from all classes taught during all three terms of the second year of teaching.

4. One in-class peer evaluation by a faculty colleague appointed by the Department Chair in consultation with the faculty member.

5. An in-class evaluation by the Department Chair (or designee).

Based on the foregoing information, the Department Chair will prepare the Second Year Evaluation on the Annual Faculty Evaluation form for the faculty member. The Chair will consult with the Dean of Faculty in preparing these comments, and the Dean may choose to append a separate set of Second Year Evaluation comments if warranted. The Department Chair and Dean of Faculty will then meet with the faculty member to discuss the complete evaluation.. If non-renewal is warranted or possible, the faculty member is to be apprised of this in this same conference. Second year evaluations are normally completed by May 31 but must be done in advance of the re-appointment deadline on June 30 (Section 10.3.3).

7.3.2.3 ANNUAL EVALUATIONS AFTER THE SECOND YEAR (TRACKS I, II, and III)
Annual evaluations after the second year will be conducted by the department chair using the Annual Evaluation procedure and form (7.3.2). This review is intended to give feedback about faculty performance and follow up any concerns that may have been raised in earlier reviews. FPTC or FRC reviews conducted in any year take the place of the annual review. Annual reviews must always be completed by May 31st.

7.3.3 PRE-TENURE EVALUATION (TRACK I)
The pre-tenure evaluation takes place during the fourth year of a faculty member’s appointment, but it can take place as early as the second year for those who come to Whitworth with transferable experience toward tenure.

The primary purpose of the pre-tenure evaluation is formative—to allow candidates to assess their strengths and weaknesses in the company of their colleagues. This process is intended to be an encouragement to the faculty member while at the same time clarifying Whitworth’s standards of professional and personal performance. Candidates should be aware, however, that the Faculty Promotion and Tenure Committee is also required by Handbook policy to make a finding whether it is probable that candidates will meet the standards for tenure. In extraordinary circumstances, the FPTC is further mandated and required to recommend termination. This evaluation, conducted in the early fall of the fourth year of employment, focuses broadly on development and growth in all four criteria for faculty evaluation (7.2). While continuing to show development in teaching, the candidate must show evidence of professional growth, both as a teacher and a scholar, professional, performer, or artist. This should begin to include evidence of professional activity and recognition outside the university (see 7.2.3).

The portfolio of materials submitted for this review is comprised of the following elements:

1. An updated curriculum vita.
2. The previous annual Faculty Activity Reports, previous annual evaluations, and the second and third year Faculty Development Plans.
3. An in class peer teaching evaluation from outside the faculty member’s department appointed by the department chair, Dean, and the Chair of FPTC, in consultation with the faculty member. When deemed necessary, the Dean and the Department Chair in consultation with the Chair of FPTC may arrange alternatives to peer teaching evaluations for faculty who instruct students in non-traditional settings (e.g., coaching, ensembles, music lessons, and library).
4. An in class peer teaching evaluation from the department chair (or designee), approved by the FPTC.
5. A complete set of student evaluations gathered from all classes taught during the previous academic year, an adviser evaluation report, and a narrative summary of the evaluations prepared by the Department Chair.
6. The narrative self-assessments are described in greater detail in the pre-tenure review checklist, but the narrative self-assessment will include the following components:
   1. A brief essay in which you describe your faith, and its continuing development as it is related to your vocation as a Christian professor. Consult the Faculty Handbook, section 5.1, for the statement on Basic Understandings.
   2. A brief essay where you describe the way that you integrate faith and learning in your teaching and scholarship.
   3. A brief essay that explains your approach to teaching within your discipline and assesses your effectiveness as a teacher. This essay must include a brief narrative that explains the changes that you have made over time to one course. In the essay you should also describe areas of strength and areas that need cultivation. The self-assessment should also describe how you have responded to peer and student evaluation feedback.
   4. Representative syllabi from courses you have taught at Whitworth.
   5. Samples of scholarly products the candidate has produced (particularly since coming to Whitworth), noting the role of peer review.
   6. A description of the types of service roles the candidate has taken on since coming to Whitworth.
   7. Any further supporting documents (external reference letters, commendations, reviews, and so on) which the candidate may wish to include.

7. The portfolio will also include at least four letters from regular Whitworth faculty. At least two must come from within the department, one must come from outside the department, and at least two must be from tenured faculty (from inside or outside the department).The candidate and department chair will develop an agreed list of proposed evaluators and submit the list to the Dean. The Dean of Faculty, Chair of FPTC, and Department Chair will appoint a list of faculty peer evaluators to provide adequate expertise, breadth, and diversity of representation. The Dean, Department Chair and Chair of FPTC will select the final evaluators, but are not limited to the list developed by the candidate and Chair
8. For pre-tenure reviews all regular and administrative faculty members are given the opportunity to submit letters of evaluation for any person under review. These letters must address the evaluation criteria, be evidence based, and must be signed. The names of the unsolicited letter writers will not be revealed to the candidate, except where in extraordinary circumstances, in the opinion of FPTC and the Dean, the disclosure of the substance of the letter and identity of the letter writer is necessary to ensure a full and fair pre-tenure review process. The candidate will, in any case, have an opportunity to respond to substantive issues contained in letters prior to or during the interview process if those issues may have a bearing on the outcome.

7.3.3.1 ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE
The committee may, at its own discretion, request additional evidence from the faculty member, seek clarification in writing from a candidate or evaluator, conduct additional classroom observations, consider any new evidence that arises subsequent to the application, and request interviews with faculty colleagues or the faculty member under review. The candidate may request to submit additional positive evidence after the due date for the application. The decision to accept the additional evidence is made by the committee chair in consultation with the Dean of Faculty. If new evidence arises after the committee’s decision, the candidate can incorporate that in a request for reconsideration to the committee or to the administration (Sections 7.3.3.4 and 7.3.6).

If negative evidence should arise between the committee’s recommendation on pre-tenure review and the final decision by the administration, the Dean of Faculty in consultation with FPTC may reconvene the committee to examine the new evidence and, if warranted, change the committee’s recommendation.

When new evidence arises during the course of a pre-tenure review, or where circumstances warrant, the Dean of Faculty, in consultation with the FPTC, may extend time periods and deadlines to ensure a full and fair pre-tenure review process.

7.3.3.2 CANDIDATE INTERVIEWS
FPTC interviews with the candidate are a required part of the evaluation process. Interviews and other requested documentation may clarify evidence in the dossier or help to enhance the committee’s understanding of the faculty member’s performance.

7.3.3.3 PRE-TENURE REVIEW DECISION FROM FPTC
To prepare its recommendation, the FPTC reviews the entire evaluation dossier and also has access to all evaluation materials from previous years (annual evaluations, student evaluations, etc.). The report is written in the form of a letter to the candidate. The letter is mailed to the candidate and must be postmarked by December 3. A copy of the letter is provided simultaneously to the Dean of Faculty.

The committee report is written in a way that will protect the confidentiality of those persons who have provided testimony bearing on the committee’s recommendation.

For the pre-tenure evaluation, the committee's recommendation will state:

1. that there are no perceived obstacles to tenure; or
2. that there are weaknesses which can be addressed so that tenure may be possible; or
3. that there are serious problems which must be addressed if tenure is to be possible; or
4. that the appointment should not be renewed subject to provisions in Section 10.4.
   

The committee will substantiate its recommendation and, if it identifies weaknesses or serious problems, it will provide suggestions for improvement. Should a candidate undergoing a pre-tenure review receive a ranking of 4, the candidate may follow the process for requesting reconsideration outlined in 7.3.3.4.

The candidate has the right to send a written response to the evaluation to the Dean of Faculty regardless of whether he or she has filed a request for reconsideration.

7.3.3.4 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF FPTC’S RECOMMENDATION FOLLOWING PRE-TENURE REVIEW
Should the candidate disagree with the findings on which a negative recommendation (ranking of 4) is based, he or she will be given ten working days after the receipt of the findings to file a written request for reconsideration to the committee, accompanied by appropriate documentation. FPTC will review the request and decide whether to change its original recommendation. A letter announcing the committee’s decision about reconsideration will be sent to the candidate no later than January 15th. A copy of this letter will be sent to the Dean of Faculty together with a copy of the request for reconsideration and copies of accompanying documentation or, if more practical, a list of items that have been added to the file. Administrative action will follow any such resolution of a request for reconsideration (Section 7.3.5).

7.3.4 QUADRENNIAL REVIEW OF TRACK II AND TRACK III FACULTY
Faculty Review Committee review of Track II and III faculty will be conducted every four years from the date of faculty hire. This review, conducted in the early spring of the fourth year of employment, focuses broadly on development and growth in all four criteria for faculty evaluation (7.2). This process is intended to be an encouragement to the faculty member while at the same time clarifying Whitworth’s standards of professional and personal performance. In extraordinary circumstances, the FRC is further mandated and required to recommend termination. If a promotion evaluation by FPTC occurs, then the next quadrennial review will take place four years later.

Track II and III faculty will be reviewed annually until their second FRC review. Should they receive a rating of “1” for the first and second FRC reviews they may elect to forego annual reviews, unless an annual review is requested by the Dean of Faculty. A successful promotion review shall be considered as equivalent to a 1 in the FRC review.

Should a faculty member receive a rating lower than “1” in any Quadrennial Review the faculty member will receive annual reviews until the next Quadrennial Review.

While continuing to show development in teaching, the candidate must show evidence of professional growth as a teacher, servant, scholar, performer, professional, or artist. Track II and III faculty interested in promotion should begin to include evidence of professional activity and recognition outside the university (see 7.2.3).

The portfolio of materials submitted for this review is comprised of the following elements:

1. An updated curriculum vita.
2. The previous year’s annual Faculty Activity Report and the previous two years’ Annual Development Plans.
3. An in class peer teaching evaluation from outside the faculty member’s department appointed by the department chair, Dean, and the Chair of FRC, in consultation with the faculty member. When deemed necessary, the Dean and the Department Chair in consultation with the Chair of FRC may arrange alternatives to peer teaching evaluations for faculty who instruct students in non-traditional settings (e.g., coaching, ensembles, music lessons, and library).
4. An in class peer teaching evaluation from the department chair (or designee), approved by the FRC.
5. A complete set of student evaluations gathered from all classes taught during all terms of the previous academic year, an adviser evaluation report, and a narrative summary of the evaluations prepared by the Department Chair.
6. The narrative self-assessments are described in greater detail in the quadrennial review checklist, but the narrative self-assessment will include the following components:
1. A brief essay in which you describe your faith, and its continuing development as it is related to your vocation as a Christian professor. Consult the Faculty Handbook, section 5.1, for the statement on Basic Understandings.
2. A brief essay where you describe the way that you integrate faith and learning in your teaching and scholarship.
3. A brief essay that explains your approach to teaching within your discipline and assesses your effectiveness as a teacher. This essay must include a brief narrative that explains the changes that you have made over time to one course. In the essay you should also describe areas of strength and areas that need cultivation. The self-assessment should also describe how you have responded to peer and student evaluation feedback.
4. Representative syllabi from courses you have taught at Whitworth.
5. Samples of scholarly products the candidate has produced (particularly since coming to Whitworth), noting the role of peer review where it is relevant.
6. A description of the types of service roles the candidate has taken on since coming to Whitworth.
7. Any further supporting documents (external reference letters, commendations, reviews, and so on) which the candidate may wish to include.
7. The portfolio will also include at least four letters from regular faculty. At least two must come from within the department, one must come from outside the department, and at least two must be from tenured faculty or Track II/III faculty who have completed at least two successful FRC reviews (from inside or outside the department).

The candidate and department chair will develop an agreed list of proposed evaluators and submit the list to the Dean. The Dean of Faculty, Chair of FRC, and Department Chair will appoint a list of faculty peer evaluators to provide adequate expertise, breadth, and diversity of representation. The Dean, Department Chair and Chair of FRC will select the final evaluators, but are not limited to the list developed by the candidate and Chair.

7.3.4.2 ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE
The committee may, at its own discretion, request additional evidence from the faculty member, seek clarification in writing from a candidate or evaluator, conduct additional classroom observations, consider any new evidence that arises subsequent to the application, and request interviews with faculty colleagues or the faculty member under review.

The candidate may request to submit additional positive evidence after the due date for the application. The decision to accept the additional evidence is made by the committee chair in consultation with the Dean of Faculty. If new evidence arises after the committee’s decision, the candidate can incorporate that in a request for reconsideration to the committee or to the administration (Sections 7.3.4.5 and 7.3.6).

If negative evidence should arise between the committee’s recommendation on Quadrennial Review and the final decision by the administration, the Dean of Faculty in consultation with FRC may reconvene the committee to examine the new evidence and, if warranted, change the committee’s recommendation.

When new evidence arises during the course of quadrennial review, or where circumstances warrant, the Dean of Faculty, in consultation with the FRC, may extend time periods and deadlines to ensure a full and fair review process.

7.3.4.3 CANDIDATE INTERVIEWS

FRC interviews with the candidate are a required part of the evaluation process. Interviews and other requested documentation may clarify evidence in the dossier or help to enhance the committee’s understanding of the faculty member’s performance.

7.3.4.4 QUADRENNIAL REVIEW DECISION FROM FRC
To prepare its recommendation, the FRC reviews the entire evaluation dossier and also has access to all evaluation materials from previous years (annual evaluations, student evaluations, etc.). The evaluation is focused on the Criteria for Faculty Evaluation (Section 7.2) and the Standards for Faculty Retention (Section 7.3.1). The report is written in the form of a letter to the candidate. The letter is mailed to the candidate and must be postmarked by April 1st. A copy of the letter is provided simultaneously to the Dean of Faculty.

The committee report is written in a way that will protect the confidentiality of those persons who have provided feedback bearing on the committee’s recommendation.
In their written assessment to the faculty member the FRC may recommend:

1. The colleague is performing commendably in all areas of responsibility.
2. There are weaknesses the colleague needs to address before the next quadrennial review.
3. There are serious problems the colleague needs to address before the next quadrennial review.
4. There are concerns serious enough that the appointment should not be renewed subject to provisions in Section 10.4.

The committee will substantiate its recommendation and if it identifies remediable weaknesses or serious problems, will provide suggestions for improvement.

Faculty who receive a rating of “2” or “3” will need to continue with annual review until the next FRC review.

Should a candidate receive a ranking of 4 from the FRC, the candidate may follow the process for requesting reconsideration outlined in 7.3.4.5.

The candidate has the right to send a written response to the evaluation to the Dean of Faculty regardless of whether he or she has filed a request for reconsideration.

7.3.4.5 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF FRC’S RECOMMENDATION FOLLOWING QUADRENNIAL REVIEW
Should the candidate disagree with the findings on which a negative recommendation (ranking of 4) is based, he or she will be given ten working days to file a written request for reconsideration to the committee, accompanied by appropriate documentation. FRC will review the request and decide whether to change its original recommendation. A letter announcing the committee’s decision about reconsideration will be sent to the candidate no later than April 30th. A copy of this letter will be sent to the Dean of Faculty together with a copy of the request for reconsideration and copies of accompanying documentation or, if more practical, a list of items that have been added to the file. Administrative action will follow any such resolution of a request for reconsideration (Section 7.3.5).

7.3.5 ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ON PRE-TENURE AND QUADRENNIAL REVIEWS FOR ALL REGULAR FACULTY
Pre-tenure and Quadrennial evaluation recommendations are reported to the Dean of Faculty, who makes the final decision in consultation with the President.

Unless pertinent deadlines have been extended by the Dean of Faculty in consultation with FPTC or FRC, the administration’s decision is to be communicated in writing to the candidate by January 31 in the case of Pre-tenure reviews, and by May 15 in the case of Quadrennial reviews.

If the Dean of Faculty does not accept the committee’s ranking, the Dean of Faculty will supply the candidate and committee with a written rationale.

7.3.6 FOLLOW-UP TO ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ON PRE-TENURE AND QUADRENNIAL REVIEWS
Following the administration’s communication of its decision, the candidate may, within ten working days, file a written request for reconsideration to the administration only if (a) he or she has not previously filed a request for reconsideration to FPTC or FRC, (b) the administration has changed the committee ranking, or (c) there is pertinent and significant new information not previously available. The administration will respond in writing to a request for reconsideration.

If the ranking affirmed or determined by the administration is a “4,” the candidate may file an appeal pursuant to the appeals process of the faculty (Section 7.7). For all other rankings, the administration’s decision is final and binding. In the event of an appeal, the administration’s decision subsequent to the appeal is final and binding.

If, upon the administration’s final decision, the ranking is less than “1,” the candidate should have a meeting with the Dean of Faculty to discuss the reasons for the ranking and steps needed to address weaknesses. Copies of letters from the committee and Dean of Faculty will be made available to the faculty member’s department chair for developmental purposes.

If warranted, and absent any prior extension of deadlines, a non-renewal decision by the Dean of Faculty must be communicated to the candidate no later than June 30 (Section 10.4).

7.4.1 ELIGIBILITY FOR PROMOTION
Minimum qualifications for appointment to the various ranks are detailed in Section 1.2. Because these are minimum qualifications, it is expected that all will be met before the application for promotion is submitted, and that qualitative evaluation of evidence will be a part of each promotion decision.

Service at Whitworth University as a contingent faculty member or other contracts/letters of employment issued by the university including overload contracts, and leaves of absence shall not accrue toward time qualifications for promotion.

Equivalency for terminal degrees is detailed in Section 1.2 and Appendix D.

Each candidate for promotion to the rank of assistant professor shall have served a minimum of one year at Whitworth University, and candidates for the ranks of associate professor or professor shall have served a minimum of two years at Whitworth before the year of application. For purposes of calculating length of Whitworth service and time at rank, a single fractional load which is .75 FTE (full-time equivalent) or greater shall be rounded up to 1. For multiple years at loads of .75 or greater, fractional loads shall be added. When this latter process results in the individual's missing the eligibility threshold by .25 or less, the total may be rounded upward.

7.4.2 CRITERIA FOR PROMOTION
Promotion evaluation will utilize the criteria for evaluating teaching faculty described in Section 7.2. The foundational expectations about professional conduct, collegial character and congruence with mission remain an essential criterion in every promotion evaluation (Section 7.2.1), but the primary focus of these evaluations will be the set of considerations related to the candidate’s competence and contribution in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service.

7.4.3 Promotion to Assistant Professor recognizes completion of appropriate terminal degrees in keeping with the qualifications outlined in section 1.2.2. For promotion to Assistant Professor a faculty member must demonstrate evidence of good performance in teaching accordance with the standard of teaching specified in 7.5.4.1, and provide evidence of good performance in scholarship and service:

7.4.3.1 evidence of good performance in teaching is indicated by commitment to the standards for teaching specified in Section 7.2.2 and the retention criteria specified in 7.3.1.
7.4.3.2 evidence of good performance in scholarship is indicated by an ongoing program of professional study and a commitment to the development of a sustained pattern of professional engagement with the relevant academic discipline and/or profession outlined in the faculty member’s professional development plan specified 7.3.1.
7.4.3.3 good performance in service is indicated by participation in appropriate institutional service roles specified in Section 7.2.4 and the retention criteria specified in 7.3.1

7.4.4 Promotion to Associate Professor recognizes a faculty member as maturing in his or her role. For promotion to Associate Professor a faculty member must demonstrate evidence of strength in teaching accordance with the standard of teaching specified in 7.4.4.1, and provide evidence of good performance in scholarship and service, but demonstrate emerging strength in one of these two areas. Successful candidates for this promotion will demonstrate:

7.4.4.1 evidence of strength in teaching is indicated by sustained superior teaching effectiveness and demonstrated achievement in all areas specified in standard 7.2.2.
7.4.4.2 evidence of good performance in scholarship is indicated by an ongoing program of professional study and evidence of a sustained pattern of professional engagement with the relevant academic discipline and/or profession. Evidence of emerging strength in this area would be indicated by scholarship that is publicly disseminated and/or subject to peer-review.
7.4.4.3 evidence of good performance in service is indicated by effective participation in appropriate institutional service roles specified in standard 7.2.4. Evidence of emerging strength in this area would be indicated by leadership in an area of departmental or institutional service, or significant service roles in the profession or community.

7.4.5 Promotion to Professor designates a faculty member as an established teacher and scholar, who is recognized as such by peers in his or her field, and who serves as a model for others in the vocation of the professor. For promotion to Professor a faculty member must provide evidence of strength in teaching, scholarship, and service, but demonstrate excellence in one of these three areas. Successful candidates for this promotion will demonstrate:

7.4.5.1 evidence of strength in teaching is indicated by sustained superior teaching effectiveness and demonstrated achievement in all areas specified in standard 7.2.2. Evidence of excellence in this area may be indicated by a recognition that the faculty member in question is among the most accomplished teachers
at Whitworth; and that the faculty member is recognized by students, administrators, and peers for making a distinguished contribution to student learning at Whitworth.
7.4.5.2 evidence of strength in scholarship would include a sustained record of publicly disseminated scholarship or scholarship that has been subject to peer review. Evidence of excellence in this area would be indicated by scholarship that has been publicly disseminated and is widely recognized by peers internal and external to the university; or works of scholarly value, as attested to by internal and external peers, that have been subject to peer review in one’s discipline.
7.4.5.3 evidence of strength in service includes a pattern of demonstrated leadership in departmental and institutional service in appropriate institutional service roles specified in standard 7.2.4. Evidence of excellence in this area would be indicated by sustained effective leadership in numerous responsible positions such as department chair, standing committee chair, directorship, or Faculty President; significant leadership in the profession or community; or providing exceptional departmental or interdepartmental leadership in significant projects such as new program development, curriculum development and assessment.

7.5.1 TENURE AT WHITWORTH
Tenure at Whitworth University is understood as a symbol of stability, of the integrity of the community, and of the joint commitment of every tenured member of the community to the mission of the University. The individual, before applying for tenure, has expended considerable time and energy in personal and professional development, has demonstrated compatibility with the mission and institutional climate of Whitworth University, and has been evaluated numerous times. Application for tenure signifies that the individual wishes to be considered a permanent member of the Whitworth community.

7.5.2 TENURE RIGHTS AND CONDITIONS
The institution, in granting tenure, recognizes that tenure confers on the faculty member continuous contract rights (Section 3.6) and implies the faculty member's acknowledgment of continuing responsibility to the community for faithful discharge of duty. Both parties understand that tenure provides protection for the individual against non-reappointment (Section 10.4), as well as partial protection in other circumstances. After the expiration of a probationary period, Track I faculty should have permanent or continuous tenure, and a tenured faculty member may only be separated from the university through resignation (Section 10.2), retirement (Section 10.3), prolonged illness (Section 10.6.2), dismissal for violation or non-performance of contractual obligations (Section 10.6.1.1.5), dismissal for adequate cause (Section 11.2.1), dismissal for incompetence (Section 10.6.1.1.4), dismissal for moral turpitude (Section 10.6.1.1.6), or termination due to financial exigency or curricular change (10.6.3).

For a Track I faculty member, failure to achieve tenure results in termination of one’s academic career at Whitworth University. The administration is responsible for the final tenure decision, utilizing a recommendation from the Faculty Promotion and Tenure Committee as an important facet in its deliberation. In cases of appeal of a tenure decision to the Board of Trustees, all board decisions are final and binding.

7.5.3 PREREQUISITES FOR TENURE CONSIDERATION
7.5.3.1 Only faculty with Track I appointments (Section 1.3.1) will be considered for tenure and, consequently, undergo a pre-tenure review (Section 7.3.3).
7.5.3.2 All faculty on Track I must undergo a pre-tenure review, conducted by the Faculty Promotion and Tenure Committee, before undergoing a tenure review. There must be at least a two-year period between the pre-tenure review and the tenure review with no exception.
7.5.3.3 For faculty who begin their academic careers at Whitworth University on Track I, the pre-tenure review occurs in the fourth year after completing three years at Whitworth. The tenure review occurs in the sixth year, after completing five years at Whitworth.
7.5.3.4 Faculty who bring transfer experience from other institutions, or who transfer to Track I from another track, must have five full-time years total experience at a four-year accredited institution of higher education, including at least three full years at Whitworth, to be considered for tenure. Their pre-tenure review may occur as early as after one full year at Whitworth provided they have three years total full time experience. The probationary period in these instances and schedule for pre-tenure and tenure review shall be noted in the faculty member’s initial contract.
7.5.3.5 Faculty who bring transferable experience may waive their right to be reviewed at their earliest eligibility.
7.5.3.6 Normally, faculty may not postpone their pre-tenure review beyond their fourth year on Track I at Whitworth, or their tenure review beyond their sixth year on Track I at Whitworth. Exceptions may be made for faculty who are granted Family Medical Leave during their first six years of service or for other good cause shown, as determined by the Dean of Faculty in consultation with the Department Chair or school Dean. This exception must be requested in writing, and a revised schedule will be placed on the faculty contract. Faculty that request an extension to the pre-tenure review may not count any leave year as time toward promotion.
7.5.3.7 Normally, candidates for tenure shall have completed a doctorate. Exceptions may be made for persons in fields where other degrees and/or credentials are deemed equivalent to doctoral qualification (Appendix D). In addition, the exceptions allowed for the various ranks may be admissible for tenure consideration as well.
7.5.3.8 Candidates for tenure shall have at least the rank of assistant professor.
7.5.3.9 Exceptional individuals with demonstrated experience and competence for whom the above requirements are inappropriate may be considered for tenure evaluation upon special request.

7.5.4 CRITERIA FOR TENURE
Tenure evaluation will utilize the criteria for evaluating teaching faculty described in Section 7.2. In light of the long-term nature of the tenure commitment, assessment of the candidate’s character and congruence with the mission of Whitworth University will be a particular focus of this evaluation. Consideration of the candidate’s competence and contribution will be concerned with assessing both the candidate’s current strengths and the evidence that the candidate will maintain and build on these strengths when granted the benefits of the tenure relationship.

To receive tenure a faculty member must demonstrate evidence of strength in teaching in accordance with the standard of teaching specified in 7.6.4.1, and provide evidence of emerging strength in scholarship and service. Successful candidates for tenure will demonstrate:

7.5.4.1 evidence of strength in teaching is indicated by sustained superior teaching effectiveness and demonstrated achievement in all areas specified in standard 7.2.2.
7.5.4.2 evidence of emerging strength in this area would be indicated by scholarship that is publicly disseminated and/or subject to peer-review.

7.5.4.3 evidence of emerging strength in this area would be indicated by leadership in an area of departmental or institutional service, or significant service roles in the profession or community.

7.6 PROCEDURES FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE
During the spring semester, the Faculty Promotion and Tenure Committee and the Dean of Faculty shall announce the deadline date for promotion applications. Faculty members who have met the criteria for eligibility for promotion or tenure or both (Refer to Sections 1.2 and 7.5.3) and believe that they have demonstrated the strengths required for promotion or tenure or both (Refer to Sections 7.4 and 7.5) may apply to the Dean of Faculty and the Faculty Promotion and Tenure Committee for consideration in the Fall of the year in which they achieve eligibility.

Faculty are responsible for initiating their consideration for promotion by submitting a timely application. Faculty wishing to be evaluated for promotion or tenure prior to a year in which an application would be required must notify the Dean of Faculty and the Faculty Promotion and Tenure Committee in writing by April 15th that they wish to be evaluated in the following fall. When an evaluation for tenure is not optional, the dean’s office will notify the faculty member and the Faculty Promotion and Tenure Committee of the required evaluation. The application must be accompanied by the materials specified in the Application for Promotion (Appendix C.9), and the Promotion/Tenure Checklist (Appendix C.7).

7.6.1 FACULTY PROMOTION AND TENURE COMMITTEE PLANNING
During the spring semester, the dean of faculty and the Faculty Promotion and Tenure Committee coordinate to establish the list of faculty who are due for evaluations during the next fall semester. Responsibilities are assigned to the committee with the dean’s office providing support services as needed.

Before the end of spring semester, the committee sends a memo to the faculty members who are due for evaluation, explaining the procedure, and providing relevant application guidelines.
The FPTC committee chair and the Dean of Faculty also coordinate with the department chair to derive a list of peer evaluators internal and external to the department. The committee also collaborates with the department chair and the Dean of Faculty to appoint two peer teaching evaluators who will attend classes in the fall and report to the committee. The names of colleagues who will write evaluation reports are sent to the committee for approval by June 1.

The committee appoints a committee liaison for to the candidate, provides a checklist and application for the candidates, and provides to the colleague evaluators an outline for their reports (See Appendix C). The committee liaison meets with the candidate to discuss the process, the timeline, and any factors which might affect a request for promotion or tenure review, including but not limited to transferable experience.

7.6.2 CANDIDATE’S FILE
The candidate will prepare an application file that addresses the criteria for evaluation (Section 7.2) and the criteria for promotion (Section 7.5.3-7.4.5) or tenure (Section 7.5.4) by including the following items:

1. An application form for promotion or tenure with a current curriculum vitae, highlighting that the candidate has the appropriate degree and years of experience to qualify for promotion and/or tenure (as established in Section 1.2 and 7.6.3);
2. The previous year’s annual Faculty Activity Report and the two most recent Faculty Development Plans.
3. An in class peer teaching evaluation from outside the faculty member’s department appointed by the department chair, Dean, and the Chair of FRC, in consultation with the faculty member. When deemed necessary, the Dean and the Department Chair in consultation with the Chair of FPTC may arrange alternatives to peer teaching evaluations for faculty who instruct students in non-traditional settings (e.g., coaching, ensembles, music lessons, and library).
4. An in class peer teaching evaluation from the department chair (or designee), approved by the FPTC.
5. A complete set of student evaluations gathered from all classes taught during both semesters of the previous academic year, an adviser evaluation report, and a narrative summary of the evaluations prepared by and the Department Chair.
6. The narrative self-assessments are described in greater detail in the pre-tenure review checklist, but the narrative self-assessment will include the following components:
1. A brief essay in which you describe your faith, and its continuing development as it is related to your vocation as a Christian professor. Consult the Faculty Handbook, section 5.1, for the statement on Basic Understandings.
2. A brief essay where you describe the way that you integrate faith and learning in your teaching and scholarship.
3. A brief essay that explains your approach to teaching within your discipline and assesses your effectiveness as a teacher. This essay must include a brief narrative that explains the changes that you have made over time to one course. In the essay you should also describe areas of strength and areas that need cultivation. The self-assessment should also describe how you have responded to peer and student evaluation feedback.
4. Representative syllabi from courses you have taught at Whitworth.
   
5. Samples of scholarly products the candidate has produced (particularly since coming to Whitworth), noting the role of peer review
6. A description of the types of service roles the candidate has taken on since coming to Whitworth.
7. Any further supporting documents (external reference letters, commendations, reviews, and so on) which the candidate may wish to include.
7. Letters of evaluation from all regular faculty department colleagues and selected faculty peers. The collection of letters must meet the following criteria:
1. At least five letters must come from regular faculty.
2. For promotion to Associate Professor or Professor and for tenure all regular faculty members within the candidate’s department are required to write an evaluation of the candidate. In consultation with the Dean and the department chair, the FPTC may exempt first-year faculty, visiting faculty, or other special cases. When there are more six non-exempted regular faculty in the candidate’s department, six evaluators will be selected by the chair of FPTC together with the Dean of faculty and the department chair, with input from the candidate.
3. At least three letters must come from faculty with tenure (inside or outside the department).
4. At least one letter must come from outside the department.

The candidate and department chair will develop an agreed list of proposed evaluators and submit the list to the Dean. The Dean of Faculty, Chair of FPTC, and Department Chair will appoint a list of faculty peer evaluators to provide adequate expertise, breadth, and diversity of representation. The Dean, Department Chair and Chair of FPTC will select the final evaluators, but are not limited to the list developed by the candidate and Chair.

All evaluators should have access to all original student evaluations from the previous year, applicant publications, and a copy of the applicant’s current vita for preparation of their letters of recommendation. These materials will be available from the Academic Affairs Office or from the Department Chair. These materials must be available to evaluators no later than September 15.

8. For tenure reviews, all regular and administrative faculty members are given the opportunity to submit letters of evaluation for any person under review. These letters must address the evaluation criteria, be evidence based, and must be signed. The names of the unsolicited letter writers will not be revealed to the candidate except where in extraordinary circumstances, in the opinion of the Dean and FPTC, disclosure of the substance and/or the identity of the letter writer is necessary to ensure a full and fair tenure review process. The candidate will, in any case, have an opportunity to respond to substantive issues contained in letters prior to or during the interview process if those issues may have a bearing on the outcome.
   
   
9. When applying for promotion to full Professor, at least one letter (solicited by the candidate’s chair or dean) offering evaluation of the candidate’s competence and scholarly contribution by peers in the candidate’s field at appropriate institutions outside of Whitworth.

7.6.3 ROLE OF LIAISON
A non-tenured applicant for promotion will be assigned a liaison from the FPTC to advise the faculty member in the preparation of materials for promotion and/or tenure. The mentor will complement the applicant's department chair (or designee) in guiding the applicant's gathering of evidence and preparation of their case for promotion. The candidate shall be informed that the liaison is a voting member of the committee.

7.6.4 ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE
The committee may, at its own discretion, request additional evidence from the faculty member, seek clarification in writing from a candidate or evaluator, conduct additional classroom observations, consider any new evidence that arises subsequent to the application, and request interviews with faculty colleagues or the faculty member under review.

The candidate may request to submit additional positive evidence after the due date for the application. The decision to accept the additional evidence is made by the committee chair in consultation with the Dean of Faculty. If new evidence arises after the committee’s decision, the candidate can incorporate that in a request for reconsideration to the committee or to the administration (Sections 7.6.7 and 7.6.9).

If negative evidence should arise between the committee’s recommendation on Promotion or Tenure and the final decision by the administration, the Dean of Faculty in consultation with FPTC may reconvene the committee to examine the new evidence and, if warranted, change the committee’s recommendation. If negative evidence arises after the administration’s decision but before final action by the Board of Trustees, the administration may reconvene FPTC to examine the new evidence and, if warranted, the committee may change its recommendation to the administration and/or the administration may change its recommendation to the Board of Trustees.

When new evidence arises during the course of a tenure and/or promotion review, or where circumstances warrant, the Dean of Faculty, in consultation with the FPTC, may extend time periods and deadlines to ensure a full and fair review process.

7.6.5 CANDIDATE INTERVIEWS
FPTC interviews with the candidate are a required part of the evaluation process. Interviews and other requested documentation may clarify evidence in the dossier or help to enhance the committee’s understanding of the faculty member’s performance.

7.6.6 THE FPTC RECOMMENDATION ON PROMOTION OR TENURE
Based upon the evidence gathered during the process of evaluation, the Faculty Promotion and Tenure Committee will make a written recommendation for or against regarding promotion, and/or tenure to the dean of faculty.
The Faculty Promotion and Tenure Committee responds in writing to each candidate informing the candidate of the committee’s recommendation. In addition, the committee may offer information that will aid the faculty member‘s future development.
For the tenure evaluation, the committee's recommendation will state:

1. that the candidate is qualified for tenure; or
2. that the candidate is not qualified for tenure.

For the promotion evaluation, the committee’s recommendation will state:

1. that the candidate is qualified for promotion; or
2. that the candidate is not qualified for promotion.

The committee will substantiate its recommendation(s) and, if there are remediable weaknesses, will provide suggestions for improvement.

Should the committee recommend against promotion or tenure, the candidate may, but need not, follow the process for requesting reconsideration by the FPTC as outlined in 7.6.6.

The candidate has the right to send a written response to the evaluation to the Dean of Faculty, regardless of whether he or she has filed a request for reconsideration.

7.6.7 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF FPTC’S RECOMMENDATION ON PROMOTION OR TENURE
Should the candidate disagree with the findings on which a negative recommendation on promotion or tenure is based, he or she will be given ten working days to file a written request for reconsideration to the committee, accompanied by appropriate documentation. FPTC will review any such request and decide whether to change its original recommendation. A letter announcing the committee’s decision on reconsideration will be sent to the candidate by January 15. A copy of this letter will also be sent to the Dean of Faculty together with a copy of the request for reconsideration and copies of accompanying documentation or, if more practical, a list of items that have been added to the file. Administrative action will follow any such resolution of a request for reconsideration (Section 7.7.7).

7.6.8 ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ON PROMOTION AND TENURE DECISIONS
After receiving a recommendation from the committee, plus the results of any request for reconsideration, the Dean of Faculty will decide to recommend or not recommend the candidate to the President for promotion and/or tenure. The President will decide to recommend or not recommend the candidate to the Board of Trustees.

The decisions by the Dean of Faculty and President must be communicated in writing to the candidate by January 31st. The Dean also informs the department chair and the committee of the outcome.

In the case that promotion to a higher rank is not accepted when recommended to the administration, the Dean of Faculty will supply the candidate with a written rationale for such action. This provision allows the candidate to make whatever adjustments were perceived as needed in the unsuccessful original evaluation.

If the Dean of Faculty and President concur with the recommendation of the Faculty Promotion and Tenure Committee to promote or award tenure, then the president will make this recommendation to the Academic Affairs Committee of the Board of Trustees at the spring meeting. Negative recommendations on promotion or tenure are also conveyed to the Academic Affairs Committee of the Board of Trustees for its final decision. Decisions of the Board of Trustees on promotion and tenure are final and binding.

Promotion and tenure are officially awarded with an affirmative vote of the Board of Trustees at the spring meeting.

7.6.9 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ON PROMOTION OR TENURE
Following the President’s communication of a negative decision on promotion or tenure, the candidate may, within ten working days, file a written request for reconsideration to the President only if (a) he or she has not previously filed a request for reconsideration to FPTC, or (b) the administration has not accepted the committee’s positive recommendation, or (c) there is pertinent and significant new information not previously available. The President will respond in writing to a request for reconsideration, either changing or reaffirming the decision.

Following the administration’s decision about tenure or promotion – and after resolution of any requests for reconsideration– the candidate may take recourse to the appeals process of the faculty (Section 7.7).

7.6.10 REAPPLYING FOR PROMOTION
Candidates not recommended for promotion will not be re-evaluated for promotion until the following academic year. This provision allows the candidate to make whatever adjustments were perceived as needed in the unsuccessful original evaluation. If candidate has been denied twice in successive years, or denied promotion to associate professor during their pre-tenure review, the candidate must wait two academic years before applying for the same promotion.

7.7 APPEALS OF EVALUATION DECISIONS

7.7.1 INITIATING AN APPEAL
If the president has upheld or rendered a negative decision on promotion or tenure or a ranking of “4” on a pre-tenure review or quadrennial review, and the candidate has unsuccessfully pursued a request for reconsideration to FPTC or FRC as applicable (Sections 7.3.3.4, 7.3.4.5, or 7.6.7) and/or to the administration when permissible (Sections 7.3.6, 7.6.9), the candidate may appeal the decision to the Faculty Affairs Committee. The appeal is initiated by way of a request to the Faculty Executive to convene the Faculty Affairs Committee for this purpose (see Section 2.2.5.2.1). The appeal must be received by the Faculty President within ten working days of the President’s negative decision.

Appeal of an evaluation decision may proceed, when applicable, after a notice of nonreappointment issued by the administration as a result of the evaluation. However, required timelines for notification of nonreappointment shall be considered as met by the administration’s original notice, unaffected by any subsequent appeal. Faculty members appealing a decision based on the recommendation of the Faculty Promotion and Tenure Committee or Faculty Review Committee will not have access to confidential letters of recommendation or other records deemed confidential by those committees, unless the FAC votes to request these materials or the Dean of Faculty, in consultation with the FPTC, determines that disclosure of such material is necessary to ensure a full and fair appeal process.

7.7.2 PERMISSIBLE GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
Appeals of evaluation decisions may be based on one or more of the following grounds:

1. Violations of Handbook policies or other established university policies or procedures.
2. Credible evidence that the decision violates Whitworth’s non-discrimination policies.
3. Alleged violation of academic freedom.
4. Emergence of significant new evidence that is pertinent to the case.
   

The Faculty Affairs Committee is not authorized to re-do the evaluation or to substitute its judgment on the merits of the evaluation outcome for that of FPTC, FRC, or the
administration. Its authority is limited to reviewing processes and resulting decisions for any of the above grounds on reconsidering the outcome.

7.7.3 FACULTY AFFAIRS PROCESS
The Faculty Affairs Committee shall commence its consideration of the appeal as soon as possible and shall complete its work within 20 working days of being convened by the Faculty Executive, unless granted an extension by the Faculty Executive.

The Faculty Affairs Committee reviews the evidence presented by the appellant, the Dean of the faculty, and the relevant review committee to determine whether policies and procedures were properly followed, including, when relevant, whether there is credible evidence of discrimination or violation of academic freedom. It may also consider, when applicable, new evidence that has emerged since the decision and determine whether it is pertinent to the case. This review process must include an interview with the appellant and the Dean of Faculty. In considering appeals of evaluation decisions, FAC may petition the Faculty Promotion and Tenure Committee or Faculty Review Committee for information that will ensure a full and fair appeal process. FPTC and FRC, as they deem appropriate without violating the confidentiality and integrity of the evaluation process, may elect to share information with the Faculty Affairs Committee. However, the Faculty Affairs Committee does not have routine access to the records of FPTC or FRC. At the committee’s discretion, the review may include interviewing other witnesses and persons with significant insight regarding the appeal.

7.7.4 FACULTY AFFAIRS ACTION
The Faculty Affairs Committee shall prepare a written report of its review and/or investigation on the appeal in accordance with Section 2.2.5.2.4. The report may (a) uphold the decision of the administration; (b) recommend that the administration reverse or reconsider its decision; (c) recommend that the FPTC or FRC be reconvened to reconsider their decision. The report of the Faculty Affairs Committee will state the reasoning behind its recommendation. The report shall be provided to the Faculty Executive, which will distribute the final report and recommendation to key parties including the appellant and the Dean of Faculty.

7.7.5 ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION FOLLOWING APPEAL
The Dean of Faculty and President will consider the Faculty Affairs Committee recommendation, then make their decision and communicate that decision within ten working days of receipt of the FAC report to the faculty member and to the Faculty Affairs Committee. For pre-tenure and quadrennial reviews, the President’s decision at this stage is final and binding. For promotion and tenure reviews, the President’s decision at this stage is conveyed as a recommendation to the Board of Trustees, with copies sent to the candidate and the FAC. The Board of Trustees’ decision is final and binding.

7.8 THE EVALUATION OF CONTINGENT FACULTY

7.8.1 EVALUATION OF CONTINGENT FACULTY
During the first semester of university service, the department chair or a designate will observe one class taught by the new lecturer or adjunct faculty person and conduct the student evaluation process. This will be followed by a meeting between the department chair and the new faculty member, at which time the student evaluation report, the course description and syllabus, and the chair's observations of the course will be discussed. A written summary of this discussion will be given to the new faculty person by the end of the semester. This process will be repeated thereafter for every fourth course taught and for every course taught for the first time. Records of these evaluations will be retained by the department chair.

7.8.2 PROMOTION OF CONTINGENT FACULTY
Promotion of contingent faculty is intended to reward teaching excellence and institutional commitment. Promotion decisions for contingent faculty are made after the end of the spring term and will apply to future appointments. Once they have been promoted, senior adjuncts, distinguished adjuncts, and senior lecturers retain these ranks as long as they teach at least nine credits at Whitworth in a three-year period. Persons who have been promoted to senior lecturer continue at that rank as long as they teach thirteen credits per academic year, and are assigned to the rank of distinguished adjunct in years when they are contracted for fewer than thirteen credits.

7.8.3 QUALIFICATIONS FOR PROMOTION TO SENIOR ADJUNCT
The qualifications for an adjunct faculty are assumed when considering promotion to senior adjunct status. At least 30 semester credits of teaching at Whitworth as an adjunct are to be completed before promotion to the rank of senior adjunct. The evaluation for this promotion may occur in the year that the 30 semester credits are completed. A graduate degree is normally required at this level. Exceptions may be made for persons in fields where other degrees and/or credentials are traditionally accepted as terminal. Promotion to senior adjunct status does not imply the existence of a permanent teaching relationship with the university. The criteria for promotion to senior adjunct faculty status are as follows:
7.8.3.1 evidence of superior teaching and educational abilities;
7.8.3.2 evidence of the ability to work constructively and competently – even in dissent – with department colleagues, members of the administration, and any other individuals and groups within the candidate’s sphere of contact; 7.8.3.3 evidence of the candidate’s commitment to the university’s mission and goals and its educational philosophy; and
7.8.3.4 evidence of the candidate’s concurrence with and implementation of the “professional rights and responsibilities of faculty members,” described in Section 5.

7.8.4 PROMOTION TO DISTINGUISHED ADJUNCT OR SENIOR LECTURER STATUS
The qualifications for a senior adjunct are assumed when considering promotion to distinguished adjunct, and for lecturer when considering promotion to senior lecturer. At least 80 semester credits of teaching as a senior adjunct or lecturer are to be completed before a senior adjunct or lecturer is minimally qualified for promotion to the rank of distinguished adjunct or senior lecturer. The evaluation for this promotion may occur in the year that the 80 semester credits are completed. Promotion to distinguished adjunct or senior lecturer status does not imply the existence of a permanent teaching relationship with the university. The criteria for promotion to distinguished adjunct or senior lecturer status are as follows:
7.8.4.1 evidence of superior teaching and educational abilities;
7.8.4.2 evidence of a high level of achievement in an academic, scholarly, or professional field that complements the senior adjunct’s or lecturer’s primary teaching responsibility;
7.8.4.3 evidence of the ability to work constructively and competently – even in dissent – with department colleagues, members of the administration, and any other individuals and groups within the candidate’s sphere of contact;
7.8.4.4 evidence of the candidate’s commitment to the university’s mission and goals and its educational philosophy; and
7.8.4.5 evidence of the candidate’s concurrence with and implementation of the “professional rights and responsibilities of faculty members,” described in Section 5.

7.8.5 PROCEDURES FOR PROMOTION OF CONTINGENT FACULTY
By March 1, the dean of faculty will prepare a list of contingent faculty eligible for promotion and distribute it to department chairs. It is the department chair’s responsibility to assist the contingent faculty member in the preparation of a promotion dossier. The promotion dossier should include a brief self-evaluation essay, current vita, teaching evaluations from the last four courses taught at Whitworth, classroom observations completed by at least two department colleagues, and a letter of evaluation from the department chair describing the recommendation of the department’s regular faculty and addressing the candidate’s performance on each of the criteria for promotion.
The dossier will be submitted to the Promotion and Tenure Committee no later than April 15. The committee will consider the dossier for promotion and send its recommendation to the dean of faculty who will make the final decision no later than June 1.

At the start of the academic year, the dean of faculty reviews a list of faculty to determine who are due for review. The dean of faculty is responsible for arranging and conducting this review. The procedure must include peer evaluations.

7.9.1 SELF-EVALUATION REPORT
The faculty member under review will prepare a written self-evaluation report for the dean. The report will include discussion on the faculty member’s course development, professional activities, teaching activities, perceived strengths and weaknesses, a four-year plan for professional growth, and copies of three recent teaching evaluations.

7.9.2 COLLEAGUE EVALUATION
The faculty member will solicit evaluations from his or her department chairperson, and from two other colleagues inside and/or outside the department. Department chairs will have a total of three evaluators. The evaluators will complete a form provided by the dean of faculty. This report includes discussion on the faculty member’s professional activity, advising, quality of teaching and other professional work.

7.9.3 INTERVIEW
The faculty member will meet with the dean of faculty and department chair and the other two evaluators. During this interview, the dean of faculty and colleagues will review any questions or concerns raised while reading the faculty member’s self report. This interview is also an opportunity to commend the faculty member for effective and important contributions to the university.

Following the meeting, the faculty member writes a summary and sends it to the dean of faculty. The dean of faculty reads the summary, and if it satisfactory places it in the faculty member’s evaluation file.

If the dean of faculty determines the summary did not adequately record key points from the interview, then the faculty member must meet with the Dean for further discussion or clarification. The faculty member may be required to submit a revised summary of the interview or the dean may append the summary with his or her own comments.

If serious problems (such as but not limited to collegiality issues, inattention to professional growth or neglect of faculty responsibilities) have been called to the faculty member’s attention, the dean of faculty may take further steps consistent with the framework of tenure.

In the case where the faculty appointment is full-time, the evaluation should and normally will include some assessment of the administrative duties, but should focus on the individual’s broader role as a faculty member. Evaluation will follow the same criteria for faculty evaluation listed in 7.6. Additional evaluation of the administrative role may occur outside the faculty evaluation process at the direction and discretion of the dean of faculty or other administrator to whom he or she reports.

In the case where an individual has a part-time faculty contract plus a separate part-time administrative or staff contract, evaluations under the faculty evaluation process will concentrate on faculty responsibilities only. The part-time administrative or staff responsibilities are to be evaluated separately under university policies and procedures applicable to the specific position.

Where faculty are assessed with substandard administrative skills or performance of duties, the dean of faculty can relieve the faculty member of his or her administrative duties. The administrative duties will be reassigned and the faculty member will return to full time teaching duties.

Back to Academic Affairs >> Faculty Handbook >>